Tim Walz Gloats About Tesla Stock Dip While Ignoring His State’s 1.6 Million Shares In Its Retirement Fund thumbnail

Tim Walz Gloats About Tesla Stock Dip While Ignoring His State’s 1.6 Million Shares In Its Retirement Fund

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz recently mocked Tesla and CEO Elon Musk over the company’s stock dropping while seemingly ignoring the fact that Minnesota’s state pension fund contained sizable shares of Tesla stock.

WATCH: Tim Walz Gloats About Tesla Stock Dip Ignoring His State’s 1.6 Million Shares in state Retirement Fund

During a Tuesday town hall in Wisconsin, Walz said that he checks the value of Tesla’s stock when he needs “a little boost.” Walz’s state, however, had 1.6 million shares of Tesla stock in its retirement fund as of June 2024, directly impacting public workers such as teachers and first responders.

“Some of you know this, on the iPhone, they’ve got that little stock app,” Walz said Tuesday. “I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day — $225 and dropping. And if you own one, we’re not blaming you. You can take dental floss and pull the Tesla thing off.”

“I’m not a vindictive person or anything but I take great pleasure in the fact that this guy’s life is going to get very, very difficult,” Walz added about Musk.

Musk recently told employees to hang on to their Tesla stock after the company’s shares dropped more than 50% in just three months, Bloomberg reported Friday. Shortly after Walz’s diss about Tesla stocks, Musk took to social media to jab at Walz over his failed 2024 vice presidential campaign.

“Sometimes when I need a little boost, I look at the @JDVance portrait in the @WhiteHouse and thank the Lord,” Musk wrote in a March 19 post on X.

Investor Kevin O’Leary criticized Walz during a Thursday appearance on CNN over the governor’s recent comments about Tesla’s stock, calling it “beyond stupid.”

“That poor guy [Walz] didn’t check his portfolio and his own pension plan for the state,” O’Leary said. “It’s beyond stupid what he did.”

“What’s the matter with that guy?” O’Leary added. “He doesn’t check the well-being of his own constituents.”

Tesla dealerships and chargers across the U.S. have been hit with a wave of vandalism in recent weeks amid ongoing backlash against Musk due to his close ties to the White House and his efforts to eliminate wasteful spending across the federal government as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Notably, other blue states have previously invested in Tesla stocks alongside Minnesota, including Oregon, which has roughly $135.3 million in Tesla stocks in its state pension fund, which equates to 0.7% of the fund’s total public equity holdings, according to OregonLive. New York’s pension fund also possessed roughly $1.42 billion worth of Tesla stock as of December 2024, according to Pensions & Investments.

Still, many Democratic lawmakers have continued publicly criticizing Musk and Tesla, including Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who claimed in March that Musk “is a billionaire con man with a lot of money,” as well as Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who wrote in a Thursday post on X that President Donald Trump and Musk “turned the White House into a Tesla dealership. Is that where you want your taxpayer dollars going? Nope.”

Walz is currently embarking on a town hall tour of red districts across the U.S. The Minnesota governor could run for reelection in 2026, though he told The New Yorker in a March 2 interview that he would potentially consider launching a 2028 presidential bid if the conditions and his “skill set” were right.

Walz’s office did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

Ireland Owens

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tim Walz Appears To Snipe At Any Kamala Harris 2028 Ambitions

Joe And Jill Biden Reportedly Try To Quietly Weasel Back Into Democratic Leadership

Turns Out Americans Were Unhappier Than Ever Before Under Biden’s Watch

EXCLUSIVE: Federal Gov’t Agencies Quietly Went On Giant Spending Sprees For Years, Report Finds

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Rogue Robes Activist Judges Who Think They Outrank the President thumbnail

Rogue Robes Activist Judges Who Think They Outrank the President

/in , , , , /by

By Amil Imani

The American system was founded on a simple idea: three branches of government, each with its distinct role. The president executes the law, Congress creates it, and the judiciary interprets it. However, at some point, activist judges became more than just referees; they began seeing themselves as emperors, wielding gavels like scepters and rewriting the rules to fit their desires. These black-robed radicals believe they possess more power than the president, and it’s time for conservatives to confront them as the tyrants they have become.

At least 46 judicial opinions have enjoined the 47th president’s actions as of March 15, according to The New York Times, including:

  • U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee who identifies as LGBTQ, overturned Trump’s executive order to preserve military readiness by disallowing most people who identify as transgender from joining.
  • U.S. District Judge Lauren King, a Biden appointee, prevented Trump from shielding minors from transgender procedures, claiming his executive order violates the Fifth Amendment.
  • U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, ordered the Trump administration to pay USAID grantees $2 billion.
  • U.S. District Judge Julie Rubin, a Biden appointee, forced taxpayers to keep funding Department of Education grants funding DEI programs.
  • U.S. District Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, reinstated 24,000 fired federal employees at the behest of public-sector labor unions.
  • U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, halted Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
  • U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, a Biden appointee, stopped the Trump administration from ending grants that promote DEI extremism and transgender ideology.
  • U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a Biden appointee, insisted the United States cannot stop admitting illegal immigrants who abuse asylum status by posing as “refugees.”

Consider the immigration saga under Donald Trump. In 2017, Trump issued an executive order—a travel ban targeting countries plagued by terrorism. It was bold, unapologetic, and squarely within his constitutional authority to protect national security. Then came the activist judges. Federal courts in Hawaii and Washington state blocked the order, with unelected judges like James Robart and Derrick Watson acting as armchair commander-in-chief. Their rationale? Trump’s campaign rhetoric caused hurt feelings, so the policy must be discriminatory. Forget the Constitution or the will of the voters who placed Trump in office—these judges concluded that their moral superiority outweighs executive power. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the ban, but not before years of chaos demonstrated the reality: activist judges do not interpret the law; they create it.

Then there’s the abortion racket. For decades, Roe v. Wade stood as a symbol of judicial overreach, a 1973 decision concocted from thin air by justices who discovered a “right” to abortion lurking in the shadows of the Constitution. Fast forward to 2022, when Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health finally overturned it, returning the issue to the states. You’d think that would settle things, but activist judges aren’t finished. In states like Ohio and Michigan, lower courts have rushed to block pro-life laws, twisting state constitutions into pretzels to keep the abortion mills operational. These judges don’t care that Dobbs stripped their federal protection – they’ll concoct new rights faster than you can say “living document.” They’re not answering to voters or executives; they’re answering to Planned Parenthood and the progressive elite.

What about guns? After Trump’s ATF tried to crack down on bump stocks – those nasty little devices that turn rifles into machine guns – activist judges swooped in again. 2023, the Fifth Circuit struck down the ban, with judges like Jennifer Walker Elrod arguing that the agency had overstepped. Fair enough, except the pattern repeats: courts don’t just check the executive – they supplant it, deciding policy from the bench. Meanwhile, in blue states, judges uphold every gun control scheme the Left dreams up, ignoring Bruen (2022), where the Supreme Court demanded strict historical scrutiny. These aren’t rulings; they’re power grabs, with judges picking winners and losers based on their politics, not the Second Amendment.

The arrogance is staggering. Millions elect presidents and are accountable to the people every four years. Judges, however, are appointed for life, insulated from consequences, yet they behave as if they run the show. When Trump attempted to end DACA—Obama’s illegal amnesty-by-fiat—courts blocked him, with judges like Nicholas Garaufis in New York asserting that the move was “arbitrary.” But when Biden pushes climate edicts or vaccine mandates, activist judges support him and rubber-stamping executives overreach as long as it’s their guy. The double standard is evident, but the message is clear: these judges believe they’re above the Oval Office, holding veto power that no election can challenge.

This isn’t what the founders intended. Article III of the Constitution assigns courts a limited role: to resolve “cases” and “controversies,” not to dictate national policy. Alexander Hamilton referred to the judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch, lacking the purse of Congress or the sword of the executive. But tell that to the modern judiciary, where lifetime appointees like Ruth Bader Ginsburg (before her passing) and Sonia Sotomayor treat the bench as a progressive throne, issuing decrees that undermine tradition and sovereignty. They don’t just see themselves as ranking above the president—they consider themselves above us all.

Conservatives must take action. Demand that Senate Republicans thoroughly question judicial nominees — no more stealth activists slipping through. Advocate for term limits for federal judges; life tenure was never intended to create demigods. And when rogue judges act, governors and presidents should channel Andrew Jackson: “The court has made its decision; now let them enforce it.” The judiciary has no army – its power depends on compliance, and we don’t have to go along with it.

Activist judges aren’t the guardians of justice; they are usurpers in robes, intoxicated by their authority. They have transformed courts into super-legislatures, bypassing both presidents and voters. The Right cannot remain passive while these petty tyrants dismantle our republic. It’s time to strip the emperor’s clothes and remind them: in America, the people rule—not the gavel.

©2025 , All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Congress Reacts to the Judicial Actions Slowing Progress on Trump’s Agenda

Congress Has The Tools To Stop Rogue Judges From Overriding Trump’s Agenda — Without Reaching For Impeachment

Impeaching Federal Judges Protects the Constitution … If Used Properly thumbnail

Impeaching Federal Judges Protects the Constitution … If Used Properly

/in , , , , /by

By Family Research Council

A much-needed national debate about impeaching rogue judges has erupted over a federal judge’s order to return illegal immigrant terrorists and murderers to the American heartland — a power which, if exercised properly, holds the potential to restore constitutional government.

This week, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, unsuccessfully ordered planes deporting Tren de Aragua gang members to be stopped in midair and returned to the United States. The ruling proved so outrageous that Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg, and President Trump has led broader calls to impeach the “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge.” Chief Justice John Roberts sharply responded that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” But America’s founders would disagree.

Boasberg is one snowflake in an avalanche of judicial activists waging lawfare against President Trump. At least 46 judicial opinions had enjoined the 47th president’s actions as of March 15, according to The New York Times, including:

  • U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee who identifies as LGBTQ, overturned Trump’s executive order to preserve military readiness by disallowing most people who identify as transgender from joining.
  • U.S. District Judge Lauren King, a Biden appointee, prevented Trump from shielding minors from transgender procedures, claiming his executive order violates the Fifth Amendment.
  • U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, ordered the Trump administration to pay USAID grantees $2 billion.
  • U.S. District Judge Julie Rubin, a Biden appointee, forced taxpayers to keep funding Department of Education grants funding DEI programs.
  • U.S. District Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, reinstated 24,000 fired federal employees at the behest of public-sector labor unions.
  • U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, halted Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
  • U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, a Biden appointee, stopped the Trump administration from ending grants that promote DEI extremism and transgender ideology.
  • U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a Biden appointee, insisted the United States cannot stop admitting illegal immigrants who abuse asylum status by posing as “refugees.”

The New Yorker summarized bluntly: “Judges Are Blocking His Agenda.” Call it the Legal Resistance 2.0.

America’s Black-Robed Oligarchy

Yet judicial activists are doing far more than opposing the president. Nationwide injunctions against legislation in effect reverse the basis of American government.

Monarchs and despots of old ruled their subjects by the code of Rex Lex: The king is the law.

The Founding Fathers waged the American Revolution to institute the principle of Lex Rex: The law is king. Democratically ratified legislation becomes legally binding even on the highest magistrate, in a reflection of the biblical concept that one law should rule all people.

But in current-year America, the reality is Iudex Rex et Lex: The judge is the king and the law. Nationwide injunctions, which are a controversial and relatively recent development, give every one of America’s 670 unelected district judges veto power over the nation’s elected representatives. Over time, judges’ temptation to impose their personal views has become irresistible.

When judges can impose their private opinions without reference to the Constitution’s fixed original intent, America has become a black-robed oligarchy. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers gave Americans the tool to regain their sovereignty over their government, the very process Trump mentioned: impeachment of rogue judges.

In her ruling, Reyes cited the musical “Hamilton.” But Lin-Manuel Miranda never wrote a rap paeon to Alexander Hamilton’s position on judicial impeachment (nor of the immigrant’s restrictive view of immigration). Like the other Founders, Hamilton believed Congress has the right to remove judges whose rulings violate the Constitution before they become “a permanent tyranny.”

Impeachment: The Constitution’s Self-Defense Mechanism

In an 1802 essay written under the pen name “Lucius Crassius,” Hamilton addressed concerns that activist judges could one day become a “colossal and overbearing power, capable of degenerating into a permanent tyranny, at liberty, if audacious and corrupt enough, to render the authority of the Legislature nugatory, by expounding away the laws, and to assume a despotic controul over the rights of person and property.” But Hamilton said the Constitution institutes “a complete safeguard” against such “a palpable abuse of power” in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: “the authority of the House of Representatives to impeach; of the Senate to condemn. The Judges are in this way amenable to the public Justice for misconduct; and upon conviction, removeable from office.”

Impeachment is the Constitution’s self-defense mechanism. Hamilton naively believed the threat of impeachment alone could stop bad judicial behavior. “There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations,” wrote Hamilton in Federalist No. 81. He once again referred to removing activist judges as “complete security” for American liberties.

But no security system works unless it is armed. And Congress has ceded much of its delegated powers to undemocratic commissions, federal regulators, and the ever-expanding encroachments of power-mad presidents and judges. (The fact that the Boasberg case involves a district judge enjoining an executive action demonstrates the growing irrelevance of Congress.)

Until the Left discovered it as a tool to overturn elections, impeachments had been rare. In America’s nearly 250-year history, “The House has impeached twenty individuals: fifteen federal judges, one Senator, one Cabinet member, and three Presidents. Of these, eight individuals — all federal judges — were convicted by the Senate,” according to a 2023 Congressional Research Service report. (Since its publication, the House impeached Biden’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas last February over his refusal to secure the border.)

The exceptional nature of impeachment shows not only the Founders’ love of stability but also that the Supreme Court and the American people retained a largely Originalist constitutional orientation until just decades ago. A pivotal moment came in 1936, when FDR’s court-packing scheme intimidated constitutionalist Justice Owen Roberts into reversing his opposition to New Deal legislation, a change of heart history dubbed the “switch in time that saved nine.” Since then, all three branches of government have been free to expand federal power without proper constitutional restraint. Supreme Court justices now openly base their opinions on foreign law rather than the Constitution, e.g., in a notable case striking down a Texas law against sodomy.

The Left has since waged war on the ideology and legitimacy of the American project writ large. Destroying the image of America’s founders — and thus, the limits they imposed on government power — was the entire point of the 1619 Project.

Now, the culturally dominant liberals pressure judges to conform every opinion to the Left’s lone governing principle: Does it expand government power and further the social revolution? Hence, judges are good when they foist immorality on the American people by, for example, removing prayer and the Ten Commandments from public schools, or discovering constitutional “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court became evil to the Left when it allowed the American people to halt the process democratically. This explains why liberals have no qualms opposing the impeachment of judges in one breath and trying to frame a specious “ethics code” as the first step to removing justices and packing (or “expanding”) the Supreme Court in the next.

Despite popular judicial impeachment efforts (such as that of the infamous Chief Justice Earl Warren), only in the second Trump administration does anyone seem poised to clean out the worst offenders. This escalation shows the American people realize that the last four years, to use the Left’s regnant phrase, were not normal. But that abnormality should also inform our qualified use of judicial impeachment going forward.

Judicial Impeachments Must Be Principled, Not Partisan

While the Founding Fathers held out impeachment, they assumed the vast majority of judges would faithfully serve the Constitution and the American people for life. They saw this as a major boon to the American people. Judges’ lifetime tenure gives them the “independent spirit” necessary to defy lawmakers, wrote Hamilton in Federalist No. 78. Courts, Hamilton wrote, must be free “to dispense the laws with a steady and impartial hand; unmoved by the storms of faction, unawed by its powers, unseduced by its favors.” Otherwise, the judiciary becomes “doomed to fluctuate with the variable tide of faction, degenerates into a disgusting mirror of all the various, malignant and turbulent humors of party-spirit.” Justices who bow to political pressure — like Owen Roberts in 1936 or John Roberts switching his Obamacare vote under pressure from the liberal media — degrade the American people’s liberties.

If wrongly pursued, the potent tool of judicial impeachments can undermine national stability. It is fitting the Boasberg ruling involves one of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts. The Adams administration’s only use of the laws came in prosecuting journalists who belonged to the other party. In many ways, the Alien and Sedition Acts were the original weaponization of government that set the tone for all future efforts. The Left has certainly never had any trouble accusing the president and his supporters of “sedition.” (The Alien Enemies Act was the only one of the four laws with a legitimate purpose.) It is hardly a stretch to foresee the mass impeachment of constitutionalist judges by a Democratic Party that cheers on the full disbarment of Trump lawyers and fantasizes about rendering Trump voters unable to earn a living.

To properly restore our government, the American people need both civic revival and spiritual revival. The necessary use of judicial impeachments cannot be based on politics or the political popularity of any one leader. Impeachment must be principled, not partisan. Judges must be appointed or removed based solely on their fidelity to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution as written. This must be accompanied by widespread cultural appreciation for the nation’s magnificent charter of liberties, the Constitution. And it must be informed by the deeply Christian (and overwhelmingly Protestant) worldview that inspired its framers.

President Trump’s speeches have done much to revive America’s flagging patriotism. Vice President J.D. Vance has publicly discussed the importance of faith and family. Their Cabinet members, perhaps especially Pam Bondi, can speak to the glorious limitations the Constitution places on the State, paving the way for a Hamiltonian use of judicial impeachment. They should adopt the motto of Hamilton’s rival, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1798, “In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” As with illegal immigration, modest enforcement will likely induce judges to self-correct.

The Constitution gives the American people the ability to exercise the greatest government: self-government under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Congress Reacts to the Judicial Actions Slowing Progress on Trump’s Agenda

Congress Has The Tools To Stop Rogue Judges From Overriding Trump’s Agenda — Without Reaching For Impeachment

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Revokes Security Clearances For Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Among Others thumbnail

Trump Revokes Security Clearances For Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Among Others

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

U.S. President Donald Trump announced Saturday the rescission of security clearances for former President Joe Biden, previously defeated challengers Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton, among others.

Trump said in the presidential memo that it was “no longer in the national interest” for the individuals affected to access classified information.

Neither Biden nor “any other member of [his] family” were to retain their security clearances, according to the memo.

Trump said Monday that Biden’s son Hunter’s security detail comprised up to 18 people and that Hunter was “currently vacationing in, of all places, South Africa, where the Human Rights of people has been strenuously questioned.” He added that Biden’s daughter Ashley would also be stripped of her 13-strong security detail.

Trump had announced the revocation of Biden’s security clearance in a Feb. 7 social media post, adding that Biden “set this precedent in 2021” by revoking Trump’s access to intelligence briefings, “a courtesy provided to former Presidents.”

Biden revoked Trump’s access to intelligence briefings in February 2021, citing Trump’s “erratic behavior unrelated to the insurrection” in a CBS News interview.

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, former Republican legislators Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, former Trump European and Russian affairs assistant Fiona Hill, former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, are among individuals affected by the presidential action.

Kinzinger appeared to mock the presidential action against him, saying he never had security clearance.

“So I woke up to MAGA being super angry that I don’t have a security clearance and that Trump’s thing meant nothing to me,” he said in a video statement. “Haha, what else you got, guys? You know, strip my World War II badges? You know, strip my Vietnam combat status? Good one!”

Others affected are New York State Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, attorneys Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, and Andrew Weissmann; and Alexander Vindman — an army veteran and former director in the first Trump administration’s National Security Council.

Reacting to Trump’s decision, Vindman said, “I’m not a weak-kneed billionaire or a massive spineless law firm, so I don’t care what noises @realDonaldTrump makes about a security clearance that hasn’t been active for five years. What’s the point of having throw-away money if you can be easily bullied by an empty suit?”

Vindman in his statement appeared to allude to the decision by the multinational law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP to provide pro bono legal services worth $40 million to the Trump administration’s initiatives, a decision that led to Trump rescinding an executive order targeting the firm.

The firm’s decision has attracted criticism — including from Zaid, who said, “There are many of us,” he said, “who will not be bullied or intimidated, notwithstanding the continuing attacks on lawyers.”

AUTHOR

John Oyewale

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Revokes Security Clearances, Denies Access To Federal Buildings To Slew Of Former, Current Officials

‘You Need A Pitbull’: House Task Force To Probe Whether CIA Misled Congress On JFK Assassination

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Returns Nearly $1 Billion In ‘Unused’ Federal Funds After Meeting With Elon Musk thumbnail

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Returns Nearly $1 Billion In ‘Unused’ Federal Funds After Meeting With Elon Musk

/in , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Friday that Florida has returned nearly $1 billion in federal funds after meeting with Elon Musk.

“For years, Florida has been trying to return federal funds to the federal government due to the ideological strings attached by the Biden Administration—but they couldn’t even figure out how to accept it,” the governor said in a post on X. “Today, I met with @elonmusk and the DOGE team, and we got this done in the same day.”

For years, Florida has been trying to return federal funds to the federal government due to the ideological strings attached by the Biden Administration—but they couldn’t even figure out how to accept it. Today, I met with @elonmusk and the DOGE team, and we got this done in the… pic.twitter.com/uWyloPAhBU

— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) March 21, 2025

“Other states should follow Florida in supporting DOGE’s efforts!”DeSantis said.

The post was accompanied by an email from DeSantis’ office to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The email noted after his visit with Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the state of Florida returned $878,112,000 in taxpayer dollars to the federal government.

The governor’s office said they will “also continue to identify other unused or surplus federal funding granted to Florida and determine if further refunds can be made.”

“Almost a billion dollars of your taxpayer money saved,” Musk said in response to DeSantis’ post. The announcement comes one month after DeSantis revealed the creation of the Florida DOGE task force which is set to “further eliminate waste within state government, save taxpayers money, and ensure accountability in Florida,” according to a press release.

“Florida has set the standard for fiscally conservative governance, and our new Florida DOGE task force will do even more to serve the people of Florida,” DeSantis said in a statement. “It will eliminate redundant boards and commissions, review state university and college operations and spending, utilize artificial intelligence to further examine state agencies to uncover hidden waste, and even audit the spending habits of local entities to shine the light on waste and bloat.”

The Florida task force is set to eliminate bureaucratic bloat and modernize the state’s government “to best serve the people of Florida.”

AUTHOR

Fiona McLoughlin

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE:Commerce Secretar Hyoward Lutnick Addresses Concerns DOGE Cuts Will Harm Economic Numbers

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How DEI and Marxism Threaten U.S. Defense with Ronald Scott on The Truth & Liberty Show thumbnail

VIDEO: How DEI and Marxism Threaten U.S. Defense with Ronald Scott on The Truth & Liberty Show

/in , , , , /by

By Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS)

STARRS President and CEO Col. Ron Scott, PhD, USAF ret, USAFA ’73 was interviewed on the Truth & Liberty Show to discuss the damaging effects of DEI and woke policies on the U.S. military, and the challenges America faces in defense readiness.

WATCH: How DEI and Marxism Threaten U.S. Defense

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Service Academies Must End Race-Based Admissions

Senator pledges to reinstate service members fired for refusing C19 vax

When will the Pentagon start taking left-wing extremism seriously?

U.S. Coast Guard Academy Jettisons Unvaccinated Cadets

EDITORS NOTE: This STARRS video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

President Trump Appoints New Members to Three Service Academy Board of Visitors thumbnail

President Trump Appoints New Members to Three Service Academy Board of Visitors

/in , , , /by

By Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS)

After removing members of USAFA, USMA and USNA Board of Visitors appointed by Biden, President Trump named their replacements today:

USAFA

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Our Great United States Air Force Academy will soon have an
incredible Boad of Visitors, composed of Doug Nikolai, Dan Clark,
Senator Tommy Tuberville, Charlie Kirk, and Dina Powell
Congratulations to all!

Doug Nikoli is a 1989 USAFA grad, an F-16 pilot and retired Colonel.

Charlie Kirk responded:

Dina Powell served as the Dep. National Security Advisor for Strategy in Trump’s first term.

USMA

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

I am pleased to announce a new Board of Visitors for our Nation’s oldest
Military Academy, West Point. Major General David Bellavia, Lieutenant
General Dan Walrath, General Michael Flynn, Congressman Wesley Hunt,
Maureen Bannon, and Meghan Mobbs are hereby appointed to the Board.
They will make our Country proud. Congratulations to all!

Gen. Flynn posted on TruthSocial:

Michael T. Flynn
@TrueGen Flynn

It is an absolute privilege to contine to server our U.S. Military in this capacity,
Being appointed by the 47th President of the United States, President
@realDonaldTrump (the greatest President in my lifetime) on the West Point
Board of Visitors is an absolute honor and humbling opportunity. Our military,
especially our Army, is an important institution that has provided so many
leaders, not only to our Army, but to our nation. Just and incredible opportunity
and I look forward to helping shape the future of West Point, our Army and our
nation. Thank you Presidnet Trump for this amazing opportunity.

Congressman Wesley Hunt, USMA ’04, posted:

“I am deeply honored to be appointed by President Trump to the Board of Visitors at West Point.

As a graduate and former Apache pilot, West Point shaped my life, values, and commitment to service.

This institution forges the next generation of military leaders, and serving in an advisory role is both a privilege and a responsibility. I look forward to working with my fellow board members to uphold West Point’s legacy of excellence.

This appointment is a continuation of my lifelong commitment to the ideals of Duty, Honor, Country.

THANK YOU for this honor Mr. President.”

David Bellavia is a Medal of Honor recipient (and retired as an Army Staff Sergeant).

Megan Mobbs, USMA ’08, served in the Army and has many articles on STARRS

Maureen Bannon, USMA ’10 served in the Army and is Steve Bannon’s daughter

Maj General Dan Walrath bio

USNA

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Completing my list of appointments to the United States Naval Academy, I am
happy to announce that the full Board will consist of Sean Spicer, Walt Nauta,
Congressman “Doc Ronnie” Jackson, Congressman Derek Van Order, Senator
Tim Sheely, and Earl Ehrhart. Congratulations to you all!

RELATED ARTICLE: The President Dismisses Board of Visitors for Service Academies

EDITORS NOTE: This STARRS column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Egypt Now Willing to Take in Half a Million Gazans thumbnail

Egypt Now Willing to Take in Half a Million Gazans

/in , , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

While both Egypt and Jordan initially rejected President Trump’s plan for Gaza, according to which both countries would take in more than two million residents of Gaza who would leave the Strip while its reconstruction was going on, it seems that Egypt is now willing to take in half a million Gazans “temporarily.” More on this offer, and why it was made, can be found here: “Egypt willing to temporarily absorb half a million evacuated Gazans – Lebanese report,” Jerusalem Post, March 21, 2025:

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said that his country was ready to temporarily host half a million Gazans who would be evacuated from the Gaza Strip, according to a Friday report by Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar.

According to the report, the Gazans would be allocated a city in the north of the Sinai Peninsula.

Does this mean these Gazans would be housed in a city that is already in existence, or would a new city be built to accommodate them? Would new housing be built for them, or would a brand-new city be constructed for them in northern Sinai, as Egypt has managed to do in building New Cairo in the Western Desert?

The comment reportedly came during a conference held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on the situation in the Middle East, in which the Egyptian leader was present, among other attendees.

According to the report, the temporary relocation offer has raised concerns with Jordan, which has previously taken a strong stance against such a move….

This offer by Egypt raises many questions. For Jordan, it is alarming, because it increases pressure on it to do the same, and to admit large numbers of Gazans whose increased presence would make the Palestinians, already more than 60% of Jordan’s population, rise to 70-75% of the total. This could threaten the rule of the Hashemite King Abdullah, who remembers how his father King Hussein had been challenged by Palestinians before, by the terrorists of Black September who tried to overthrow him in 1970.

It is also not clear what this offer means by “temporary” resettlement. Would it last the entire time that the reconstruction of Gaza is going on, or would the Gazans be expected to go back before then? Trump’s plan mentions a period of five years during which the Gazans would be expected to remain outside the Strip. For what period does El Sisi plan to house those half-million Gazans?

Was the offer made in good faith, or merely as a way for Egypt to curry favor with President Trump, with El-Sisi expecting no more than a handful of Gazans — certainly not half-a-million — to take up his offer?

Did the Trump administration put pressure on El-Sisi to make the offer, by threatening to cut off all aid to Egypt? Has it done the same with Jordan, or does it recognize that King Abdullah is in a different situation from El-Sisi, and worries about a still larger Palestinian population overwhelming the Jordanians in his kingdom?

Who would pay for the new housing in the northern Sinai? One assumes that the rich oil states of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait, would be called on, rather than the United States. Trump has no interest in committing tens of billions of dollars to such a project. Has such a commitment from those states to provide necessary funds to Egypt been received?

Many questions remain. But it’s a sign that Trump’s plan for Gaza, though widely ridiculed when first proposed, is having a salutary effect.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Wait a Minute. THIS Group Got $7 Million in Taxpayer Dough?

Taliban release US hostage on ‘humanitarian grounds’ as Islamic State boasts that Trump won’t act against Taliban

Two men found guilty of plotting to murder Iranian dissident in New York City

One More Deportation Achieved: A Sympathizer with Hezbollah

Democrats Go All In On Killing Jews

Hamas-Linked CAIR Has Man Fired for Interviewing Robert Spencer

Former UNRWA top dog is now Hamas spokesman, calls on ‘every Muslim to rise up for Palestine and for Gaza’

RELATED VIDEO: Christian Gets Fired for Criticizing Islam Online (in America!)

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

ICE Asks Pro-Palestine Foreign Student To Surrender Himself After He Sues Trump thumbnail

ICE Asks Pro-Palestine Foreign Student To Surrender Himself After He Sues Trump

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asked a Cornell University doctoral student and prominent pro-Palestinian protester to surrender himself for deportation proceedings after he preemptively sued the Trump administration, his lawyers said.

Momodou Taal’s lawyers said Friday that ICE ordered and pressured Taal to surrender after he sought a judge’s temporary restraining order to prevent the Trump administration from detaining and deporting him. He sought the restraining order after ICE sent agents to stake out his house, according to Taal’s representatives.

“ICE invites Mr. Taal and his counsel to appear in-person at the HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] Office in Syracuse at a mutually agreeable time for personal service of the NTA [Notice to Appear] and for Mr. Taal to surrender to ICE custody,” an email sent Friday by the Department of Justice prosecutors partly read, according to The Cornell Daily Sun.

An NTA is an initial step toward deportation, according to CNN.

The prosecutors said they “wanted to reach out to establish a line of communication, and relate some information concerning your client” while their application for admission to the federal court in New York was pending, according to the email.

“In the past 48 hours, this administration has taken unprecedented steps to bypass the courts, by pressuring our client, Mr. Momodou Taal, to surrender to ICE,” Maria Kari, one of Taal’s attorneys, wrote in part.

“The Trump administration responded to Momodou Taal’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the executive orders by sending agents to stake out his house,” wrote Eric Lee, Taal’s lead counsel. “When we asked the Court to enjoin the administration from detaining Mr. Taal as the case progresses, the administration responded by ordering him to surrender to ICE. This does not happen in a democracy.”

Taal’s lawyers and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) filed the lawsuit enjoining the Trump administration from using two executive orders to “authorize deportation or prosecution based on protected speech,” the ADC said March 16.

I’m suing Trump.

This is my statement: pic.twitter.com/sw9Uv1F4YY

— Momodou ✊🏿 (@MomodouTaal) March 16, 2025

Taal and two other fellow plaintiffs — identified in the lawsuit as plant science doctoral student Sriram Parasurama and Professor of Literatures in English Mũkoma Wa Ngũgĩ — felt the “chilling effect” of the executive orders, which they argued “violate the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike by impermissibly restricting speech based on viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment,” according to the lawsuit.

Taal is a British-Gambian PhD candidate at Cornell’s Africana Studies and Research Center, the ADC noted. The Ivy League university suspended him twice in 2024 for disruptive on-campus political activities, according to the Cornell Daily Sun. The other two plaintiffs are U.S. citizens, according to the ADC.

All three plaintiffs “now fear government retaliation for engaging in constitutionally protected expression critical of U.S. foreign policy and supportive of Palestinian human rights,” the lawsuit partly read.

Kari said the case was “a litmus test for the state of free speech in America.” Lee said ICE‘s request for Taal to surrender should make every American outraged and keen to defend free speech.

Law enforcement agents appeared around Taal’s home and on the Cornell University campus — both in Ithaca, New York March 19, Taal posted on X. He claimed that the Trump administration was seeking to preventively detain him and reiterated his commitment to pro-Palestinian activism.

Taal posted Oct. 7, 2023 — the same day Hamas conducted a lightning terrorist attack on Israel — “Glory to the resistance!” The post drew criticism.

AUTHOR

John Oyewale

Contriubutor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Has Close Connections’: Trump’s DHS Nabs Another Foreign Student On Suspected Terror Ties

Columbia Bends The Knee To Trump

One More Deportation Achieved: A Sympathizer with Hezbollah

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Explores Criminal Charges Against Ousted USIP Mutineers thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Explores Criminal Charges Against Ousted USIP Mutineers

/in , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

The Department of Justice is exploring potential criminal charges against former U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) officials who attempted to block the Trump administration’s leadership changes at the federally funded think tank Monday, a senior DOJ official told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The official, who requested anonymity, told the DCNF the DOJ is examining whether certain USIP actions — such as the removal and destruction of internal and external door locks — created illegal fire hazards. The official also flagged the widespread distribution of internal flyers instructing USIP staff not to cooperate with incoming Trump administration officials as potentially obstructive conduct. The DCNF was the first to report on USIP’s internal flyer campaign and destruction of door locks.

“Eleven board members were lawfully removed, and remaining board members appointed Kenneth Jackson acting president,” Anna Kelly, White House deputy press secretary, previously told the DCNF. “Rogue bureaucrats will not be allowed to hold agencies hostage. The Trump administration will enforce the President’s executive authority and ensure his agencies remain accountable to the American people.”

The inquiry — which remains in its early stages, the official emphasized — follows a contentious standoff Monday after former USIP leadership tried to block the installation of Kenneth Jackson, who President Donald Trump appointed as the institute’s new president on March 14. The Trump administration determined the institute had failed to comply with a Feb. 19 executive order requiring federally funded organizations like USIP to scale operations down to their bare statutory minimums, triggering a leadership shakeup the institute attempted to resist.

USIP leadership began preparing for a confrontation weeks before the executive order was issued. A Feb. 6 internal document exclusively obtained by the DCNF outlined plans to deny building access to outside officials and reasserted the institute’s discretion over security systems and facilities. Flyers with the names and photos of Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) officials were posted throughout the building, instructing staff to report their presence and avoid conversation.

After Jackson and other DOGE officials arrived on March 14 with law enforcement and a copy of Trump’s order, they were turned away by USIP’s legal counsel, sources previously told the DCNF. Over the following weekend, USIP leadership escalated its resistance — terminating its private security firm, disabling internet and phone systems and resorting to walkie-talkie communication inside the building.

DOGE officials returned Monday to find the building locked down and staff barricaded on the fifth floor. USIP officials called the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), sources previously told the DCNF, who only later arrived at the request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. after reports of obstruction by institute staff. MPD entered the fifth floor through emergency stairwells and removed former USIP President George Moose and other senior officials from the premises.

While a federal judge declined to issue a restraining order halting the leadership transition Wednesday, she sharply criticized DOGE’s cooperation with law enforcement, despite the circumstances surrounding USIP’s refusal to comply.

The DOJ official did not specify which individuals were under investigation or when a decision on charges might be made.

AUTHOR

Thomas English

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Inside A Taxpayer-Funded Think Tank’s Aborted Rebellion Against DOGE

Taxpayer-Funded Think Tank’s Legal Bid To Repel DOGE Goes Down In Flames

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

ELECTION VICTORY: Federal Judge Upholds the Right to Inspect Maryland Voter Rolls thumbnail

ELECTION VICTORY: Federal Judge Upholds the Right to Inspect Maryland Voter Rolls

/in , , , , /by

By Judicial Watch

Maryland is finally learning what other states have learned: federal law requires transparency in the voting process.

District Court Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland struck down a Maryland State Board of Elections regulation that restricted and criminalized the use of voter registration lists for voter fraud and other “investigations.”

Citing a separate Judicial Watch court victory in Maryland that opened up voter rolls to public scrutiny under federal law, the court recognized that restricting the use of the state’s voter rolls presented an obstacle to upholding federal voter roll maintenance as required by the National Voter Registration Act’s (NVRA).

This ruling comes in the case Katherine Strauch Sullivan, et al., v. Michael G. Summers, et al., (No. 1:24-cv-00172), in which we filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of the Maryland voters who challenged the new rule:

One of the many necessary documents in order to determine whether a jurisdiction is in compliance with the NVRA’s list maintenance provisions are the voter registration list with voter history for prior general federal elections. These records were at issue in 2017, when Judicial Watch sued in this Court alleging that the state law requirement to be a Maryland registered voter was unlawful and preempted by the NVRA’s public disclosure provision…. This Court agreed, finding that both the records requested in the voter registration list were subject to disclosure under the NVRA and the state’s requirement to be a registered voter frustrated the purposes of the federal law and was preempted by it.

As several federal courts have recognized, the public records provisions of the National Voter Registration Act were intended to enhance the ability of private groups to monitor whether states are removing ineligible voters from their voter rolls. In August 2019, a federal court in Maryland noted that organizations “such as Judicial Watch” have “the resources and expertise that few individuals can marshal. By excluding these organizations from access to voter registration lists,” the purpose of the federal law is undermined. That court ordered Maryland to produce the voter registration list, with fields indicating name, home address, most recent voter activity, and active or inactive status. In April 2020, the same court ordered Maryland to provide Judicial Watch with the dates of birth.

Judge Maddox notes in his opinion: “On or around June 2023, the SBE [Maryland State Board of Elections] adopted the regulation restricting the use of voter registration lists by Maryland voters who request them.”

A voter requesting access to the voter registration list, including voting history, must provide a signed and sworn statement that the list is not intended for commercial solicitation or any other purpose “not related to the electoral process.” …

As they have done in the past, Plaintiffs [Sullivan] anticipate using the registered voter list from the SBE [State Board of Elections] and voting histories for registered voters to conduct statewide investigative canvasses to identify and analyze what they believe are potential errors, irregularities, or anomalies within MDVOTERS [voter database going back to 2006].

Judge Maddox’s opinion concludes:

In sum, the Court concludes as a matter of law that the Use Restriction in COMAR [Code of Maryland Regulations] … presents an obstacle to accomplishing and executing the purposes and objectives of the NVRA [National Voter Registration Act] and is, therefore, preempted.

This new federal court ruling affirming a transparency requirement for voter registration lists is an important victory for Maryland voters and election integrity. It was truly outrageous that Maryland election officials tried to criminalize voters asking questions about election integrity.

As you know, we are a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of our work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.

Earlier this month, we sent a notice letter to Lt. Governor Deidre M. Henderson, notifying her that Utah is currently in violation of federal NVRA public disclosure requirements. The notice letter warns of a lawsuit after 90 days if the issues are not resolved.

In July 2023, we filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, supporting the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, which struck down Maine’s policy restricting the use and distribution of the state’s voter registration list. The lawsuit is now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. According to a national studyconducted by Judicial Watch in 2020, Maine’s statewide registration rate was 101% of eligible voters.

Also in July 2023, we settled a federal lawsuit against the Illinois State Board of Elections, requiring it to grant access to its centralized statewide list of registered voters. State officials had refused to allow the nonprofit Illinois Conservative Union and three lawfully registered Illinois voters to obtain a copy of the state’s voter registration list, despite their lawful request for those records under federal law.

In recent years, Judicial Watch’s analysis and use of voter registration lists has led to lawsuits and legal actions that have resulted in the removal of four million names from voter rolls in nearly a dozen states and localities, including Los Angeles County and New York City.

Full Appellate Court Takes Historic Step to End Counting of Votes Received after Election Day

This is an important victory for Judicial Watch. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to rehear its previous ruling, in which it agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after Election Day. The full Circuit declined to hear the case by a vote of 5 to 10.

We filed a civil rights lawsuit in February 2024, challenging the Mississippi election law on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi (Libertarian Party of Mississippi v Wetzel et al. (No. 1:24-cv-00037)). The suit was consolidated with one filed by the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and other complainants.

(We filed the first challenge to require all ballots to be received by Election Day in 2022 against Illinois.)

The October 25, 2024, Fifth Circuit appellate opinion at issue found:

Congress statutorily designated a singular “day for the election” of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this “day for the election” is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi’s statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse the district court’s contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Earlier this month, we filed a federal lawsuit against California on behalf of U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa to prevent state election officials from extending Election Day for seven days beyond the date established by federal law. California counts ballots received up to seven days after Election Day.

In an Illinois “Election Day” lawsuit in November 2024 we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court challenging the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors from Illinois to prevent state election officials from counting ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

This Fifth Circuit action is a historic victory for honest elections. Federal law sets “Election Day” not “Election Week.” California and the 17 other states should take notice. Our lawsuit just filed against California for counting ballots received for up to seven days after Election Day has even more urgency and strength.

Judicial Watch Sues for DHS Records on Trump Assassination Attempt at Butler, PA

Why is there so much secrecy surrounding the assassination attempt on Donald Trump?

To find out, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records related to security provided for the July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA, during which there was an assassination attempt on President Trump (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00704)).

The lawsuit was filed after the agency failed to comply with a July 15, 2024, FOIA request for:

All records, including emails, email chains, email attachments, text messages, video or audio recordings, photographs, outlook calendars, meeting minutes, correspondence, statements, letters, memoranda, reports, briefings, presentations, notes, summaries, requests for assistance, agreements, travel records, receipts, or other form of record, regarding providing support or manpower to President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign rally that was held in Butler, PA, on July 13, 2024.

The request specifically sought records from the agency’s Homeland Security Investigations, which is believed to have helped provide security at the Butler event.

On July 13, 2024, at a campaign rally in Butler, PA, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to assassinatePresident Donald Trump. After the attempt on President Trump’s life, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas named a bipartisan panel to conduct a 45-day independent review of the planning for and actions before, during, and after the rally.

Federal agencies need to come clean on the events that led up to the assassination attempts on President Trump. It is now  eight months since the first attempt, and the American people have yet to receive any answers under FOIA on the failures of the Biden administration to protect President Trump.

We are extensively investigating the assassination attempts on President Trump.

In August 2024, we received Secret Service records that showed the Secret Service has made it a top priority that “diversity and inclusion is not just ‘talked about’ – but demonstrated by all employees through ‘Every Action, Every Day.’” [Emphasis in original]

We also uncovered records from the district attorney’s office in Butler County, PA, detailing the extensive preparation of local police for the rally at which former President Trump was shot, including sniper teams, counter assault teams and a quick response force.

In response to a separate open records request, we obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department.

We reported that the FBI withheld information on a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information about its coordination with the U.S. Secret Service regarding the July 13 Butler, PA, rally.

On July 31, we reported that the United States Secret Service completely denied multiple FOIA requests for documents about the assassination attempt on former President Trump.

Judicial Watch Sues for Files on Former Trump Lawyer Christina Bobb

We’re taking another step to expose the Biden administration’s legal persecution of Donald Trump.

We filed lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security for records regarding Christina Bobb, a former lawyer for President Trump.

We also announced that Bobb has joined the litigation team at Judicial Watch.

We sued the Justice Department after the FBI failed to respond to a January 24, 2025, FOIA request for records about Bobb (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-00588)).

Among other records, the lawsuit seeks all related investigative reports, intelligence products, or similar records, as well as all records of communication between any official or employee of the FBI and any official, employee, or representative of any other branch, department, agency, or office of the federal government mentioning or referring to Bobb.

We sued Homeland Security after the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) failed to respond to January 24, 2025, FOIA request for all records regarding Bobb’s enrollment in the TSA PreCheck Program and any cancellation or suspension of that enrollment, as well as all records of communication between any official or employee of TSA and any official, employee, or representative of any other branch, department, agency, or office of the federal government mentioning or referring to Bobb (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00834)).

Bobb was an attorney for President Trump from 2022-2024 before joining the Republican National Committee to assist election integrity efforts for the 2024 election.

She was a part of Trump’s legal team during the Biden Justice Department’s pursuit of the classified documents case.

On August 8, 2022, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. Bobb was Trump’s custodian of record at the time and was at Mar-a-Lago during the raid.

The classified documents case was ultimately dismissed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in July 2024.

Bobb, a former on-air host for One America News Network, is also the author of Stealing Your Vote: The Inside Story of the 2020 Election and What it Means for 2024.

Bobb joins the Judicial Watch team after working for President Trump and his campaign to secure the 2024 election. In 2022, she joined President Trump’s PAC Save America to help secure America’s elections and ensure President Trump received a fair opportunity to win the White House again.

Bobb has been a long-time friend of Judicial Watch and an advocate for government accountability.

Shortly after she began working for the president, the Department of Justice and FBI embroiled her in both Jack Smith investigations of the Mar-a-Lago documents and January 6. She saw firsthand how partisan government operatives abuse their authority to eliminate political opposition, and she’s now determined to eliminate partisan threats from the government.

Prior to working for President Trump, Bobb held executive level positions in the Department of Homeland Security, served in the United States Marine Corps as a Judge Advocate, practiced civil litigation in San Diego, and now returns to her litigation roots with Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C.

Bobb commented: “I am thrilled to be joining the litigation team at Judicial Watch. There is no better organization to hold government officials accountable for their actions. At this time in history, there is no greater mission than to root out government corruption. I’m grateful to be on the team.” Christina’s unique experience and dedication make her a perfect fit for our mission. We’re happy to have her join the team and look forward to having her skills and expertise help expose the full extent of anti-Trump lawfare and government corruption.

U.S. Global Media Agency Fired Journalists Behind Newscast Critical of Soros

The tax-funded agency meant to proclaim U.S. values to the world was turned into an anti-American propaganda machine, which the Trump administration is now moving to shut down. Our Corruption Chronicles blog explains.

The government-funded media syndicate being dismantled by President Trump spreads anti-U.S. propaganda, covers news with a distinct leftist bias and even utilized Stalinist techniques to retaliate against journalists and producers behind a newscast—that cited Judicial Watch as a source—critical of leftwing billionaire George Soros. The taxpayer-funded news agency also ordered staff to refrain from calling Hamas terrorists, suppresses negative stories about Iran, has been infiltrated by anti-American, pro-Islamic state interests and employed a Russian anti-U.S. propagandist. This history indicates that scrutiny of the public conglomerate, known as U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), was long overdue. The president’s recent executive order to gut it will save American taxpayers around $900 million a year that could easily be applied to a myriad of domestic programs.

Five international media networks—Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting—operate under USAGM and reportedly reach 345 million people worldwide in 59 languages. The global media agency was created to counter disinformation spread by oppressive regimes abroad. The USAGM website states that its mission is “to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.” The editorial objective of this government-funded media was developed during the Cold War and is supposed to support the national strategic objectives of the United States. It was specifically created to provide people in communist nations, via outlets such as Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, with information about the free world that is prohibited by their totalitarian rulers.

It makes no sense for American taxpayers to fund anti-U.S. propaganda that gets broadcast and published worldwide. That apparently is what has been occurring for many years at USAGM, which has a workforce of around 3,500 and an $886 million budget in 2024. The agency requested a substantial budget increase of $950 million for fiscal year 2025. In its Congressional Budget Justification, USAGM touts its Diversity and Inclusion Initiative with the appointment of an inaugural Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) who will collaborate closely with the Office of Civil Rights to align Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) training with a focus on crucial conversations, cultural diversity, and inclusivity. In the document, the agency assures that the new diversity chief will implement greater visibility and awareness of USAGM’s DEIA initiatives, identify new opportunities for DEIA initiatives agency-wide, and advance equity for underserved communities.

Since Trump ordered USAGM’s shutdown, the administration official charged with the job, senior adviser Kari Lake, has found a multitude of problems, including massive national security violations in which spies and terrorist sympathizers infiltrated the agency, eye-popping self-dealing involving contracts, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on fake news companies, and obscene overspending on building leases with no broadcasting facilities. Lake’s team even uncovered a $9 million commission to a private real estate agency with connections. “Waste, fraud and abuse run rampant in this agency and American taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund it,” said Lake, a former television news broadcaster. She has determined that, from top to bottom, the USAGM is a giant rot and burden to the American taxpayer as well as a national security risk. It is not salvageable, and Lake’s team will clean it up so it can meet the “core mission of telling America’s story throughout the world in a meaningful, impactful and effective way.”

Liberals have long been in charge at USAGM, and the previously mentioned Soros broadcast is just one of many examples. The Spanish-language segment, which focused on the Hungarian philanthropist’s efforts to cripple sovereign governments in Latin America, aired on Television Martí (which operates under OCB) and was available for months online before a scandal-plagued Democratic senator discovered it and demanded an investigation. The disgraced veteran lawmaker, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for bribery, extortion and conspiracy. At his request, Obama’s USAGM chief, John F. Lansing, fired eight reporters and editors involved in the Soros broadcast. Judicial Watch was cited as a source because it investigated State Department funding of Soros groups in Colombia and published a report on Soros’ initiatives to advance a radical globalist agenda in Guatemala.

Critically Thinking about the Arguments against DOEd thumbnail

Critically Thinking about the Arguments against DOEd

/in , , , /by

By John Droz, Jr.

There are few national decision that are more important than this, so we MUST get this right! 

In my prior commentary on the Department of Education (DOEd), there were several readers who took issue with AI’s conclusion that it would be better to reform DOEd than kill it. (I fully agree with AI.)

Many of these people were very passionate in their fervor to eliminate DOEd — but it’s a well-established fact that emotion and logic are often at odds.

Let’s apply some logic — i.e., Critical Thinking — to their stated objections:

1 – “The Constitution makes no mention of a Department of Education, therefore it is unlawful.”

The Constitution also makes no mention of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, etc., etc — so to follow that reasoning almost all Federal departments should be scrapped. I don’t think so!

2 – “Our K-12 education is a disaster, and since DOEd is the top dog, it needs to be euthanized.”

We are in 100% agreement that DOEd has been terrible in the past. However, scrapping it does not remedy one iota of their prior bad behavior. On the other hand, properly reforming it does! (For example, see here.)

Another flaw in this thinking is that DOEd is actually NOT at the top of the K-12 education pile! In reality, the top of the K-12 heap is each State’s Board of Education (along with each State’s Department of Education). They — not DOEd — control the standards for each subject area. They — not DOEd — control the textbooks in each K-12 subject area. They — not DOEd — oversee state certification tests. Etc.

3 – “There is no point in reforming DOEd as four years from now the Democrats will undo that.”

a) Extending that thinking would mean that there is no point in making ANY policy changes in ANY area. That view makes no sense.

b) Note that the Left does not buy into this silliness, as when they are in power they go to great lengths to incorporate their ideology into every crevice available. Yes, some of it can be stopped, but they make large inroads in the meantime. For example, the current administration (including the Department of Energy) acknowledges the complete absurdity of industrial wind energy. However, the US has already been severely burdened by 75,000± turbines that we can’t just uproot and trash.

c) If sensible Education (and other) policies are implemented, most citizens will appreciate that, and will likely vote to have four more years of the same.

4 – “I’m against giving any more authority to a Federal Government agency.”

I support that idea, and if DOEd is properly reformed, it will end up with less authority. Furthermore, its remaining authority will be significantly different (more productive) than it was before.

It’s understandable to have a concern about Government overreach, but this can be irrational — like Trump Derangement Syndrome. Further, the States can be just as bad (or worse — e.g., California, NY, etc.) so turning things over to the States just gives them more power, which is the root of the overreach problem.

5 – “We should eliminate DOEd as we need less bureaucracy.”

No argument there — I advocated getting rid of 90% of DOEd. That said, the real creators of the K-12 education bureaucracy are States. For example, look at the huge increase in administration K-12 positions. Essentially all of this is due to poor State oversight rather than DOEd.

6 – “Our K-12 education system went downhill after the DOEd was created by Carter.”

Yes, but that is an example of “Correlation does not prove causation.” During this same period, the Left has made a much more aggressive effort to take over K-12 education — from teacher certification to State level Subject Standards (like NGSS). That is the reason for the decline in K-12 education, not DOEd.

7 – “States will do a better job with optimizing the K-12 curricula, etc. than DOEd will.”

a) No one is advocating that DOEd put forth national curricula standards, so that’s a strawman argument.

b) To date, 95%+ of the K-12 curricula have been determined and approved by the States (more specifically each State’s Board of Education). The quality of their work in that regard is abysmal — e.g., as a lifelong scientist, I can tell you that the K-12 Science Standards (NGSS) are terrible. (For some details see here.)

c) Not a single State is formally teaching students to be Critical Thinkers, which (after the 3Rs) is the single most important skill that high school graduates should have. DOEd has nothing to do with this abject failure.

d) To genuinely fix the K-12 education mess, DOEd should provide competent leadership. For example, DOEd should make clear in their Mission Statement, etc., that a primary goal of US K-12 education is to produce Critically Thinking graduates. How each State does that will be up to them, but the goal is then established.

8 – “We should be cautious about one-size-fits-all solutions.”

a) This over-used adage has resulted in more problematic outcomes than the Precautionary Principle. If a policy benefits 99% of students, should we trash it because 1% do not benefit? That is not Critical Thinking!

b) None of my DOEd recommendations is a one-size-fits-all idea anyway. For example (as explained in 7-d) even though DOEd would establish goals, the States would determine how to accomplish them on their own.

9 – “Getting rid of DOEd would allow parents to have more control of K-12 education.”

This is yet another misunderstanding. The States already control 95%± of the K-12 education (e.g., curricula), so getting rid of DOEd would provide zero benefits to parents. Further, the idea that parents will fix major K-12 problems is simply without merit. For example, arguably the single most serious problem in US K-12 schools is what is being taught via the NGSS. I’m aware of no parents, or major conservative organizations, who have publicly exposed the problems with NGSS, and are stridently advocating against using it. None.

On the other hand, DOEd has the pulpit and money to do something meaningful about the NGSS cancer.

10- “Getting rid of DOEd will get rid of CRT, DEI, SEL, etc in our K-12 schools.”

This is silly, but I’m listing it as people have made this claim. CRT, DEI, SEL, etc. are in State K-12 schools because the State Boards of Education (and State Departments of Education) gave them their blessing (like here). Getting rid of DOEd will not change that one iota.

Trump has already issued Executive Orders (EOs) on K-12 (e.g., on Critical Race Theory). But this would not have been needed if the States had already fixed this corruption of our education system. However, this top-down leadership is needed because States are more the problem than the solution!

11- “Core Knowledge is a curriculum built upon the concept of the Common School espoused by our founding fathers. We don’t need a DOEd to implement Core Knowledge throughout our 50 states.”

No one said we need DOEd to impart Core Knowledge. That is the purview of States — and they are NOT doing it! Please read my prior commentary, which discusses this and much more.

12- “We need to eliminate DOEd because they have supported inappropriate actions of teachers unions.”

Yes the old DOEd seems to have done that. So the new DOEd fires the people who were behind that, and changes policies so that it won’t happen again. Further, DOEd becomes a powerful force to see that teachers unions get on the same page as to what is in America’s best interests. [Note: no DOEd means that teachers unions will continue on as a negative force, as no State has the power or interest to take them on!]

13- “With DOEd gone, more money would go to the States.”

a) In 2024 DOEd had $80± Billion in discretionary money plus $170± Billion of statutorily required allotments. With DOEd terminated, Congress and DOGE would use that change to aggressively REDUCE this $250± Billion to lower our federal deficit, etc. There is almost no chance that it will be increased.

b) In the remote case that States did get more K-12 education money, that would be a horrific waste of taxpayer funds, as THE STATES ARE THE K-12 PROBLEM! So giving them more money would REWARD them for the failing system we already have! What sense would that make?

14- “If we turn K-12 education entirely over to the States, some will excel and some will fail miserably — but overall, we will be better off than we are now.”

The reality is that right now, States control 95% of the K-12 education system, so the extra 5% is trivial. Further, ZERO states are currently succeeding and ALL are failing miserably — and DOEd has absolutely nothing to do with that! Nothing is keeping any State from doing a superior job at educating K-12 students — yet none of them are. What’s needed is positive leadership, which has been missing from DOEd.

15- “President Trump wants to eliminate DOEd and I trust that he knows what he is doing.”

As a supporter of President Trump, I acknowledge that he has voiced his desire to eliminate DOEd. It’s now reported that he will soon sign an EO to do that. That said, President Trump has a few dozen major issues on his plate, and clearly he can not be an expert on all of them.

Regarding the K-12 Education system his intentions are admirable, but he does not have the experience to see that eliminating DOEd — rather than reforming it — is an extremely bad decision for America.

Also, every President is heavily dependent on the advice he is given. In this case, as I have explained above and here, it appears that he has not been given good advice.

It should be clear that President Trump’s real objective here is to significantly improve the US K-12 education system. We should all support that extremely important goal, and the best way to bring this about is to Transform DOEd, not Terminate it. Ironically, killing DOEd will make the K-12 education system WORSE!

Hopefully, Congress will step up and support DOEd transformation and stop its termination*.

I’ve tried to list every objection to DOEd fairly. Most of the complaints are entirely legitimate — but getting rid of DOEd is simply NOT an appropriate resolution (as explained above).

Interestingly, almost all of the complaints about DOEd apply to the individual State Boards of Education (along with their sister player State Departments of Education) — yet the passionate attackers of DOEd pay almost no attention to the State level problems right in their own backyard that are easily 10x worse! Why is that?

Lastly, there are multiple HUGE benefits to properly fixing DOEd (here I list several), but none of the kill DOEd advocates appreciate or acknowledge that ENORMOUS upside.

The most effective way to have a say here is to directly phone both your House (202-225–3121) and Senate (202-224–3121) representatives. (When the operator answers, just give them the name of your representative and ask to be connected.) When you are connected to each of your representatives’ office simply leave this message: “My name is ___. As a constituent I want the Department of Education to be Transformed not Terminated.”

THANK YOU! Making just two calls could result in our K-12 education system actually being meaningfully fixed!!!

©2025   All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

For those using RSS feeds, use https://criticallythinking.substack.com/feed

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

EXCLUSIVE: Linda McMahon Prepares To Shut Down Department Of Education Following Trump’s Order thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: Linda McMahon Prepares To Shut Down Department Of Education Following Trump’s Order

/in , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Education Secretary Linda McMahon is preparing to shut down the Department of Education by pledging to work with Congress and state leaders to “eliminate the bureaucracy responsibly” in a memo obtained by the Daily Caller as Trump signs an executive order aimed at dismantling her office.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday that directs McMahon to take “all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States.” In her first comments on the executive order, obtained exclusively by the Daily Caller, McMahon explains that the department “will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others” while working with the states to give them control over education.

“Closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them — we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs. We’re going to follow the law and eliminate the bureaucracy responsibly by working with Congress and state leaders to ensure a lawful and orderly transition,” McMahon says in her statement.

“With today’s action, we take a significant step forward to give parents and states control over their children’s education. Teachers will be unshackled from burdensome regulations and paperwork, empowering them to get back to teaching basic subjects. Taxpayers will no longer be burdened with tens of billions of dollars of waste on progressive social experiments and obsolete programs. K-12 and college students will be relieved of the drudgery caused by administrative burdens — and positioned to achieve success in a future career they love,” she continues.

The executive order does not abolish the department, but rather sizes it down as it calls for “uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

Abolishing the department would require Congressional approval. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Caller that the president would later address whether he wants Congress to codify his executive order.

“Today’s Executive Order is a history-making action by President Trump to free future generations of American students and forge opportunities for their success,” McMahon writes.

“We are sending education back to the states where it so rightly belongs. Education is fundamentally a state responsibility. Instead of filtering resources through layers of federal red tape, we will empower states to take charge and advocate for and implement what is best for students, families, and educators in their communities,” she continues.

🚨 Daily Caller White House Correspondent @reaganreese_ asks Press Sec. Karoline Leavitt about abolishing the Department of Education 🚨

REESE: “Is the Administration asking Congress to codify Trump’s executive order to abolish the department?”

LEAVITT: “I’ll leave it to the… pic.twitter.com/peEmQTzUJB

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 20, 2025

Trump is expected to sign an executive order aimed at closing the Department of Education today.

In attendance at the invitation of the White House will be:

— Neeraja Deshpande, policy analyst and engagement coordinator for @IWF‘s Education Freedom Center,

— Stephanie…

— Reagan Reese (@reaganreese_) March 20, 2025

White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields told USA Today that the order “will empower parents, states, and communities to take control and improve outcomes for all students.” Fields also pointed to the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress data as a reason why the department needs to be paired down.

In January, new National Assessment of Educational Progress data showed that in 2024, one-third of eighth graders, the largest percentage on record, failed to reach reading level expectations. Students’ scores in reading have been on a decline since 2019.

“Since 1979, the U.S. Department of Education has spent over $3 trillion with virtually nothing to show for it,” the White House wrote in a fact sheet. “Despite per-pupil spending having increased by more than 245% over that period, there has been virtually no measurable improvement in student achievement.”

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House correspondent. Follow Reagan on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Soaring Levels Of Non-English Speaking Students May Be Driving National Reading Test Scores Into Ground

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Chief Justice Roberts Can Avert an Impending Constitutional Crisis — But Will He? thumbnail

Chief Justice Roberts Can Avert an Impending Constitutional Crisis — But Will He?

/in , , , , , /by

By Family Research Council

For nearly a decade, Democrats have campaigned on little more than the message that President Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler reincarnated. Although Trump won both the electoral and popular votes in November, effectively having been given a mandate from the American people to govern the nation, the old cries of “Dictator!” may soon be heard again from the progressive corners of the nation — unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in and averts a rapidly approaching constitutional crisis.

As this writer previously noted, Trump was elected in order to carry out the agenda that he promised he would: gutting the swollen federal bureaucracy, eliminating the waste and fraud plaguing the American taxpayer, ending the woke stranglehold suffocating key federal institutions, and initiating the mass deportation of millions of illegal immigrants who have violated the laws and disregarded the sovereignty of the United States of America.

However, a spate of unelected, largely-partisan federal judges — almost exclusively at the district court level — have issued sweeping restrictions against many of the president’s executive orders and actions. Some recent examples include a U.S. district court judge halting the Trump administration’s virtual shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), another district court judge blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from reclaiming roughly $20 billion hastily spent by the previous administration on climate hysterics, and yet another district court judge preventing the U.S. military from barring transgender-identifying individuals from enlisting, citing the musical “Hamilton” in her order.

One of the most egregious examples of this recent judicial overreach came when District Court Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order demanding that U.S. planes deporting 250 members of the criminal terrorist organization Tren de Aragua return the violent gang members to the U.S. In concert with his top immigration advisor, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a war-time measure allowing the president to arrest and detain or deport any male over the age of 14 who comes from a foreign country which has been designated an enemy. The Alien Enemies Act has actually been used on several occasions throughout U.S. history, including during the War of 1812 and both the First and Second World Wars.

Miller and the White House have spent the past several days defending the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act — which Trump pledged on several occasions to invoke while campaigning. In an interview this week, Miller took a particularly strong stance against Boasberg’s ruling, explaining, “The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country — men like John Adams — was written explicitly to give the president the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States.” He continued, “That is not something that a District Court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain in any way. … There’s not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone District Court review.”

The Alien Enemies Act, which is part of Title 50 of the U.S. Code, explicitly bars federal courts from curtailing the president’s use of the Act. In fact, Title 50 § 23 addresses the jurisdiction which federal courts do or do not have over the president’s exercise of Title 50: federal courts are allowed to detain or deport “any alien enemy resident” within their jurisdiction or district, even if the president’s terms for invoking the Alien Enemies Act does or would exempt that individual from detainment or deportation. What a federal court is most certainly not allowed to do, according to the clear terms established in Title 50, is prevent the president from invoking the Alien Enemies Act or rescind his proclamation of invocation. “Under the Constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one? Or the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy?” Miller asked regarding the Alien Enemies Act. He answered, “The president and the president alone makes the decision of what triggers that.”

Since then, Miller has continued to warn of the dangers posed by an unchecked, unelected cabal of partisan judges who are empowered to effectively shape — via restrictive court order — the policy of the executive branch of the federal government and prevent the administration from enacting the policy that the American people overwhelmingly voted for. “There are nearly 700 unelected district court judges. If the most extremist of these judges on any given day decides he is in charge of the executive branch then Article II, democracy[,] and government itself cannot function,” Miller observed in a social media post.

He added, in another post, “Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security[,] and Commander-in-Chief. Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing[,] and national security policies of the Administration.” He warned, “It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness. It is the gravest assault on democracy. It must and will end.”

This is where the U.S. Supreme Court comes in — or, rather, where it should come in but has so far refused to. As The Washington Stand previously reported, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene in a case where a district court judge forced the administration to pay $2 billion, erroneously labeling his order of compulsion as a temporary restraining order. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in the matter, accepting, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the district court’s temporary restraining order “at face value,” as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito put it in a scathing dissent. “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Alito asked, in his dissenting opinion, with which Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined. He continued, “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”

The justices’ majority in rejecting the Trump administration’s petition was comprised of Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Biden appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson, Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by George W. Bush. The fact that Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s left-leaning trio (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) is not much of a surprise, as the nominally conservative jurist has sided with the court’s more liberal wing on numerous occasions, seemingly in an effort to maintain some form of consensus. What was only slightly more surprising was that Roberts publicly rebuked the president for calling for Boasberg’s impeachment.

Following the district court judge’s order demanding that hundreds of already-deported terrorists be returned to the United States, Trump suggested that Boasberg should be impeached. “I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” the president declared over Truth Social.

In a relatively rare public statement, Roberts replied, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” He added, “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” This is, once again, not the first time that Roberts has seemingly been at odds with Trump, although his public statements on such subjects are a relative rarity. In 2018, after Trump disparaged a federal judge as an Obama appointee, Roberts told the media, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges, or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

Of course, the recent rash of overreaching temporary restraining orders and the years-long partisan lawfare campaign aggressively waged against Trump stand themselves as rebukes against Roberts’s 2018 claim. While “Bush judges” and even “Trump judges” may not see themselves as levers of power for one ideological faction over another, “Obama judges” and “Clinton judges” — and especially Biden judges — are largely blatant activists. Therein lies a crucial part of the problem: if the president is to do his job and carry out the agenda that the American people elected him to carry out, then he cannot be hampered by activist judges who are willing to bend, misconstrue, reinterpret, and misinterpret the very U.S. Constitution which they were sworn to uphold.

Trump has a very limited period of time in the White House, a very limited period of time in which to enact his agenda; he should not have to waste months or even years working his way through a federal court system at least partly run by the very activist judges erroneously and (in many cases) disingenuously thwarting his executive efforts in the first place. As, once again, Miller noted, “Unelected rogue judges are trying to steal years of time from a 4 year term. It’s the most egregious theft one can imagine: robbing the vote and voice of the American People.”

Yet Roberts is unwilling to intervene. While his siding with left-leaning justices is par for the course and his public rebukes of the president are not thoroughly shocking, his refusal to intervene is something of a surprise. Despite numerous decisions Roberts has made (some of which he has himself authored) that have disappointed conservative Americans, he has long been a strong and clear proponent of the separation of powers.

One of his most consequential rulings, in Trump v. United States, is typical of the Chief Justice’s bent for preserving not only the integrity and power of the federal judiciary but the integrity and power of the executive branch of the federal government too. In that case, Roberts penned a landmark opinion defending the core constitutional duties and powers of the presidency, clarifying that a president is entitled to absolute immunity for any of his actions which fall within the scope of his core constitutional duties and powers, as delineated in Article II of the Constitution, and is entitled to presumed immunity for all of his official acts.

“Appreciating the ‘unique risks’ that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him ‘unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,’ the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges ‘rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history,’” Roberts himself wrote in July. He continued, “Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.” In other words — again, as Roberts himself noted — there is a fundamental urgency inherent in the office of the president and the president himself is empowered by Article II of the Constitution to make bold decisions for the good of the nation. When it comes to the exercise of his core constitutional duties and powers as established in Article II, the president should not be able to be enjoined nationwide by activist judges who are, frankly, acting outside their jurisdictions.

This line of reasoning is one which Roberts should readily reach, particularly given his robust defense of the executive branch and the separation of powers over the course of his jurisprudential career. Yet he has still declined to intervene in these urgent cases wherein the Trump administration has sought the Supreme Court’s ruling. The very fact that Trump and his White House officers have repeatedly beseeched the Supreme Court for relief is demonstrative of the fact that the president will abide by the Supreme Court’s decision, as he has numerous times in the past.

As recently as this week, Trump insisted that he does not, at present, intend to openly defy court orders. “You can’t do that,” he said, affirming that he expects the Supreme Court to make a just and reasonable decision, once his cases reach that level. That is, of course, if one of Trump’s numerous petitions is taken up by the Supreme Court. Thus far, the record reflects that Roberts and Barrett, at least, are not inclined to allow the president to make his case. But the refusal of the justices to act may precipitate a constitutional crisis on a scale not seen in the U.S. in over 160 years.

Should the Supreme Court refuse to examine the question of whether activist judges are maliciously — and, more than likely, unlawfully — stepping outside their jurisdictions to bombard the Trump administration with a bevy of temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, court orders, and other such, the president will be faced with a gravely difficult decision.

On the one hand, in the absence of Supreme Court intervention, the president could simply waste the next four years attempting to battle these multitudinous court orders, effectively allowing unelected activist judges to throttle the executive branch of the federal government. He may prevail in a Court of Appeals or even at the Supreme Court, but by the time the cases are litigated, argued, decided, and appealed over and over again, Trump will be on his way out of the White House, having achieved very little of what he was elected to achieve. In essence, national policy for the next several decades will be shaped not by elected officials, but by a judicial mafia appointed by agenda-driven Democrats in the first quarter of the 21st century. More crucially, the judicial branch will have managed to subdue the executive branch, shattering that barrier hailed as the “separation of powers” and choking the vitality and potency from the presidency. Such a situation would, clearly, be a constitutional crisis, and even the oft-assailed authority and legitimacy of the Supreme Court may not prove a strong enough force in such times to check the power-snatching of the district courts.

On the other hand — again, in the absence of Supreme Court intervention — the president may choose to continue exercising the powers clearly granted to his office in Article II of the Constitution, even in seeming defiance of the lawless orders of activist judges. There is a dangerous sort of precedent for such a course of action, no doubt made all the more appealing to a man of Trump’s character by the “Great Man of History” theme associated with it. President Andrew Jackson’s infamous line, “The Chief Justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it,” comes readily to mind, as does Napoleon Bonaparte’s maxim, “He who saves his country violates no law,” which Trump himself recently quoted. Following such a course of action, the president would be flagrantly violating the letter of the law, as contained in the host of court orders assailing his administration, but would still be able to present a strong case for upholding the law and saving his country. This, too, would be an obvious constitutional crisis and would certainly see a resurgence of wailing progressives crying, “Dictator!” and “Hitler!”

The Founding Fathers designed America’s federal government — and the crucial separation of powers — in such a way to ensure that no one state and, even worse, no one man could force his will on the entire nation. Yet that’s exactly what these unchecked activist judges are doing, defiling the very Constitution which they swore to uphold and corroding the nation they purport to safeguard. If the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice continually refuse to intervene, a constitutional crisis of near-unrivaled magnitude will decimate the nation. If Roberts continues rejecting the president’s pleas for order and clarity, then Jackson’s quote may be amended to read, “The Chief Justice has made his decision. Now let him live with it.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Habits of Honor, Faith, and Patriotism — Col. Doug “Stoli” Nikolai thumbnail

Habits of Honor, Faith, and Patriotism — Col. Doug “Stoli” Nikolai

/in , , /by

By Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS)

One of the new appointees to the USAFA Board of Visitors is retired Air Force Col. Doug “Stoli” Nikolai, a 1989 graduate of the Air Force Academy and F-16 pilot.

He has extensive combat, tactical, and operational experience with more than 2,800 flying hours, including more than 260 combat hours earned during Operations SOUTHERN WATCH and IRAQI FREEDOM.

His assignments have included the following duties: F-16 Weapons Instructor Course Pilot, Flight Examiner, Flight Commander, Assistant Operations Officer, Chief of Wing Weapons and Tactics, Chief of Squadron Standardization and Evaluation, Chief of 11 Air Force Weapons and Tactics, Operations Officer, Director of Staff, F-16 Squadron Commander and Deputy Group Commander.

He served as Chief of the Weapon Systems Liaison Division of the Secretary of the Air Force’s Legislative Liaison Office, Pentagon, Washington, D.C.

STARRS President Col. Ron Scott, PhD, USAF ret, USAFA ’73 watched a presentation Stoli gave for the organization, Leading With Power, which aims to build up men to be better husbands, fathers, leaders at work and leaders in the community.

Col. Scott highly recommends this presentation: Leading with Power

EDITORS NOTE: This STARRS column with video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Rangers Lead the Way – New Army Video thumbnail

Rangers Lead the Way – New Army Video

/in , , /by

By Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS)

The U.S. Army just dropped an impressive new 8- minute video called, “How DO you become a U.S. Army Ranger? | Army 101” featuring the 75th Ranger Regiment.

The movie-like visuals, storyline and music are pretty stunning and a welcome relief after the cartoon Emma and her two moms nightmare of previous years.

Pure meritocracy in this one.

WATCH: How DO you become a U.S. Army Ranger? | Army 101

EDITORS NOTE: This STARRS column with video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Maybe It’s Time to Boycott the Boycotters thumbnail

Maybe It’s Time to Boycott the Boycotters

/in , , , /by

By Matthew Hausman, J.D.

There is nothing impolitic about ostracizing countries, firms, products, and public figures who use their celebrity advocacy to empower enemies who seek to destroy Israel and exterminate her people. Let them all know what you think.

As a professor of legal studies in the community college system, I periodically receive calls and inquiries regarding the academic employees’ union. Though I usually relegate such calls to voicemail oblivion, I finally answered because I actually felt the need to engage. When asked about joining the union, I declined; and when asked why, I said that I was disturbed by the stance of most academic unions regarding Israel. In this case, I could not support an organization that shortly after October 7th endorsed calls for an immediate ceasefire that seemed to imply moral equivalence between terrorists and their victims.

It was not the expected response.

But I felt compelled to say something. Too many in academia and politics draw such moral equivalence or support odious boycotts against Israel, while still others remain silent to avoid incurring the wrath of anti-Israel activists they otherwise consider political allies. Some would just rather say nothing to get along.

Not me.

Progressives who conflate terrorism with self-defense, preach divestment, or favor boycotts against Israel, Israeli universities, or Jewish businesses in Judea and Samaria are either grossly ignorant or morally adrift. Often the latter. Indeed, they often legitimize Hamas, contextualize antisemitic terrorism as a response to “occupation,” or blame Israel for the destruction that Gazans brought on themselves by electing and supporting Hamas and endorsing or participating in the murder, torture, and imprisonment of Israeli hostages. Despite shedding facile tears for Gaza, western progressives rarely mention the Israeli civilians murdered, raped, and kidnapped on October 7th or show compassion for Jewish children subjected to unspeakable horrors.

Where was their outrage when the Bibas children were choked and pummeled to death by their barbaric captors and their broken bodies returned to the mocking jeers of Gazan citizens? We should not ascribe an ounce humanity to terrorist savages who aspire to exterminate the Jewish people – in this case, two babies at a time – or sympathize with civilians who cheer them on. The Hamas charter is clear that its goal is genocide, not peaceful coexistence, and it cites Islamic sources as doctrinal justification for murdering Jews.

Western apologists continue to call on Israel to negotiate – or to look for “moderate” alternatives with whom to dialogue. However, there are no moderate alternatives. Though considered the default interlocutor by many, the Palestinian Authority continues to incite terror, teach antisemitism, and provide “pay-for-slay” stipends to the families of terrorists who murder Jews (partially subsidized in the past with US funding under the Obama and Biden administrations); and its charter denies Jewish history, nationhood, and humanity. Clearly, the PA is not moderate. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that the recent uptick in terrorist activity from Judea and Samaria could occur without the PA’s knowledge, complicity, or blessing.

All one need do is read their words to know that both Hamas and the PA seek the destruction of Israel and her people. They only differ in strategy, with Hamas favoring immediate, cataclysmic annihilation over the PA’s phased approach using dissimulative dialogue.

Progressives categorically imbue Palestinian Arabs with historical integrity, presuming they represent the original indigenous population going back hundreds of generations and thousands of years in the Jewish homeland. They do not; and in fact, many (most?) are descended from Arab tribes that came from Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula and elsewhere throughout the Arab-Muslim world (and others from around the Ottoman Empire), with a large influx coming between the nineteenth century and 1940s, drawn by economic prosperity created by the Jews.

False assumptions about Palestinian Arab historicity obscure the true nature of the conflict, which is not really a dispute between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs over land, but an existential battle to delegitimize Israel and erase Jewish history. The establishment of a state of ‘Palestine’ that never existed will not facilitate peace because the Arab goal was never harmonious coexistence with Jews, but instead the destruction of Israel – whether by Hamas’s genocidal means or the PA’s more nuanced, phased strategy.

The UN’s belated condemnation of the “abhorrent and appalling treatment of hostages” after the broken bodies of the Bibas family were returned was out of character; it usually revels in bashing Israel with classical antisemitic stereotypes. However, its moment of moral clarity was short-lived as the president of its Human Rights Council censored a video statement referencing the Bibas family by Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust Director Anne Bayefsky. Moreover, although the UN’s initial condemnation might have suggested some compassion for Jewish victims, it could not erase the institution’s history of demonizing Israel with baseless resolutions, falsely accusing Israel of human rights violations, attempting through UNESCO and UNWRA to erase the Jews’ history from their homeland, and fostering global antisemitism.

And now, blaming Israel for breaching a ceasefire that was over and that Hamas never truly honored when it was in place.

Similar criticisms could have been leveled against the Biden administration for imposing boycotts on Jews living in Judea and Samaria while providing Gaza with humanitarian aid it knew was going to Hamas. Though that administration’s intent may have been to aid those it deemed blameless in the conflict, it ignored the undeniable evidence of civilian support for Hamas. Indeed, as shown by Arabic speaking Israelis posing as Arab journalists, some Gazans who repudiated Hamas when questioned in English responded differently when they believed they were being interviewed by Arab media.

Civilians who support terror and advocate the Jews’ extermination should be neither excused nor pitied. Moreover, if they truly reject Hamas and desire peace, they bear the burden to prove sincerity – particularly considering the complicity of many Gazans who worked in Israel, boasted friendships with Jews, and used their access and relationships to draw maps showing terrorists where they would find Jews to rape, murder, and kidnap on October 7th.

In light of the complicity of “civilians” in facilitating Hamas’s attack and assisting in the imprisonment of hostages, Israel cannot afford to simply believe Gazans who reject Hamas when asked in English, but who approve its atrocities when speaking in Arabic to those they believe are Arab journalists.

After years of engaging in taqiyya (dissimulation) when speaking about their desire for peace or willingness to concede Israel’s existence (while simultaneously enabling terrorism), they should be regarded skeptically when claiming to renounce Hamas. Western progressives never seem to learn, however, as they continue to tolerate antisemitism masquerading as political discourse or human rights advocacy, either out of naivete or their own antisemitic impulses. There can be no other reason for validating or tolerating anti-Israel boycotts, violence against Jews on college campuses, or antisemitic propaganda spewed by progressive Hollywood elites.

Rather than accept this status quo, Jews should respond by ostracizing the boycotters – and also politicians, academics, and entertainers who disparage Israel, embrace antisemites, or support genocidal terrorists. If woke celebrities condemn Israel and endorse Hamas out of ignorance, they should be called out for stupidity; and if out of malice, they should be recognized as antisemitic. Decent people should stop watching their movies, reading their books, and listening to their music; and when they appear in public wearing keffiyehs around their necks or bloody red “ceasefire” pins that actually commemorate the murder and dismemberment of Jews in PA police custody, they should be shamed as ignoramuses or hatemongers.

They are the ones promoting genocide, not Israel; and there is nothing impolitic about boycotting the boycotters or chastising vacuous public figures who use celebrity advocacy to empower enemies who seek to destroy Israel and exterminate her people.

Spurning the ideological, intellectual, or artistic output of anti-Israel progressives is not about putting them out of business but rather branding their work-product as tainted with the stench of bigotry.

This is the reason my parents’ generation would not buy German automobiles after World War II, Wagner’s operas were not performed in Israel, and Jews refused to watch movies by propagandist filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. And it is the reason why Jews today should (a) avoid the films and music of artists who boycott Israel, champion terrorists, and defend antisemitic hate-speech, and (b) stop sending their children to those universities (sixty at last count) now under investigation by the US Department of Education for enabling campus antisemitism and failing to protect Jewish students.

My refusal to join the union didn’t influence the organization in any way; but I could not support the apparent endorsement of moral equivalence regarding Israel’s war with Hamas any more than my parents could buy a Volkswagen. It’s about choosing right over wrong to assure Jewish continuity. As the Torah says in Sefer Devarim (30:15-19): “See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil…You shall choose life, so that you and your offspring will live.”

©2025 All rights reserved.

Elon Musk’s Dragon Rescue Starliner Saves Astronauts Abandoned by NASA thumbnail

Elon Musk’s Dragon Rescue Starliner Saves Astronauts Abandoned by NASA

/in , , , , /by

By Editorial Board – DrRichSwier.com

It is amazing that some are actually fact checking the rescue of the two astraunauts abandoned by NASA.  and  from FactCheck.org wrote:

During a Fox News interview with host Sean Hannity on Feb. 18, Trump said he gave Musk the “go-ahead” to accelerate a mission to retrieve the astronauts, claiming that they had been abandoned on purpose by former President Joe Biden to avoid political backlash. Trump said, “They didn’t have the go-ahead with Biden. He was going to leave them in space. I think he was going to leave them in space. … He didn’t want the publicity. Can you believe it?”

[ … ]

Several leaders at NASA said they were unaware of Musk’s offer to bring the astronauts home sooner.

WATCH: Elon Musk just Exposed SpaceX OFFERED Rescue Starliner Astronauts But NASA Refused

Who do you trust more a NASA bureaucrat or Elon Musk?

WATCH: Rescued Astronauts Stun the Internet with Unexpected Message

So, the two rescued astronauts thank Elon Musk and President Trump for saving them after being abandoned in space for 9 months!

WATCH: Elon Musk Just Declared this after Dragon rescue Starliner Astronaut Return…

TRANSCRIPT

“Elon Musk saved the U.S. space program…If it weren’t for Elon Musk, we would not be able to fly U.S. Astronauts from U.S. soil to the International Space Station. There is no doubt about it.”

These are huge words of praise from former NASA astronaut Charles Camarda for Elon Musk, recognizing what he and SpaceX just have accomplished.

And it’s absolutely true! The story of the Starliner astronauts has finally come to an end—they have returned home safely.
What did Elon Musk declare after this mission?

Let’s find out more on today’s episode of Alpha Tech!

Elon Musk Just Declared this after Dragon rescue Starliner Astronaut Return…

NASA’s Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore — who gained international attention as their planned short stay in space stretched into a more than nine-month, politically fraught mission — are finally home.

Williams and Wilmore, alongside NASA’s Nick Hague and cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency, safely splashed down off the coast of Tallahassee, Florida at 5:57 p.m. ET Tuesday.

The crew’s highly anticipated return came after the crew climbed aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule and departed the International Space Station at 1:05 a.m. ET Tuesday.
Elon Musk Just Declared this after Dragon rescue Starliner Astronaut Return…

The quartet is part of the Crew-9 mission, a routine staff rotation jointly operated by NASA and SpaceX. The Crew-9 capsule launched to the space station in September with Hague and Gorbunov riding alongside two empty seats reserved for Williams and Wilmore, who had been on the orbiting laboratory since last June, when their original ride — a Boeing Starliner spacecraft — malfunctioned.

Safely reaching Earth concluded a trip that, for Williams and Wilmore, has garnered broad interest because of the unexpected nature of their extended stay in orbit and the dramatic turn of events that prevented them from returning home aboard the Boeing Starliner vehicle.

Then President Trump does this!

BTW, the fake news doesn’t want you to see this clip. President Trump just said he will pay the two stranded astronauts overtime pay for the 286 days that they were stuck in space — out of his own pocket.

WATCH: President Trump will pay the abandoned astronauts out of his pocket!

We are truly in the Gloden Age of America. We have a loving and caring President in Donald J. Trump and an American hero in Elon Musk.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Skin In The Game thumbnail

Skin In The Game

/in , , , , /by

By Kenneth R. Timmerman

You could call it the Donald Trump theory of international relations: getting skin in the game without sending U.S. troops.

That’s what you saw when President Trump offered Zelenskyy the deal to exploit Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. The Z-man was obsessed with getting U.S. “security guaranties” — a promise to send U.S. troops should Russia attack again in the future.

Trump rightly said, no. Instead, he offered to put U.S. companies on the front lines, essentially making those civilians a tripwire should Russia dare attack.

Similarly, this week Trump convinced both Putin and Zelenskyy to engage in a limited ceasefire by ending strikes on energy and other civilian infrastructure, and then floated the idea that Ukraine should sell its power plants to U.S. companies as a deterrent to Russian attacks.

Now as a shareholder, I’m not sure I would want my company owning such a high risk asset. But still. The intent was clear: skin in the game.

Without skin in the game, we see what happens. On Friday, Russia launched waves of armed drones against the Black Sea port city of Odessa, sparking power outages, and the Ukes responded by allegedly blowing up a gas metering station near Kursk, Russia.

Both seemed to be pretty clear ceasefire violations. But with no skin in the game, neither attack has led to consequences, yet.

With NATO, President Trump is using a similar strategy.

This week, he floated the idea of allowing a French general to become the Supreme Allied Commander, the first time ever a non-American would command NATO. Some Republicans on the Hill were unhappy with that, but that’s because they don’t understand the notion of skin in the game.

Let the French suddenly be in charge of NATO troops and I’ll bet you they increase their defense spending significantly. Because now they will have skin in the game.

The European Union is beginning to understand the concept, although how they get to execution is another matter.

European Commission president Ursula Van der Leyden is floating her “Readiness 2030” plan that would obligate EU members to spend 800 billion euros over the next five years to expand their defense capabilities.

How they actually achieve that goal is another matter. She is calling on the EU as an institution to “lend” 150 billion to member countries to get the ball rolling, perhaps by magically printing money or just by asking richer countries to pony up cash for their poorer neighbors.

She wants the money to be spent on massive purchases of new weaponry – mainly from European defense companies, specifically excluding US and British companies from the competition.

Good luck on that.

President Reagan tried to open a “two-way street” of defense procurement with Europe in the 1980s, but after many years of trying, the Euros didn’t have that much to offer the Pentagon, and certainly zero in terms of major weapons systems.

Germany’s Leopard II tanks have turned out to be clanking coffins in Ukraine, and the Ukes are clamoring for more Patriot air defense systems, not the European knock-offs. But it’s always worth a shot.

The Iranians are also beginning to realize they’ve got skin in the game in Yemen — and wish they didn’t.

President Trump this week made sure they understand that the United States considers every Houthi drone to be an Iranian drone, every Houthi missile to be an Iranian missile, and every Houthi attack on Israel or international shipping in the Red Sea to be an Iranian attack.

Desperate to divert President Trump and Pete Hegseth from utterly demolishing the Houthis in Yemen, the Iranians summoned the chief-let of their main proxy militia in Iraq for meetings with top revolutionary guards brass in Tehran.

The word on the street is that they ordered Akram al-Kaabi to carry out a massive rocket attack on the U.S. Embassy Baghdad. I can’t wait to see how that works out for them.

The last time they tried that stunt, which I describe in some detail in Chapter 40 of The Iran House, President Trump ordered a drone strike that took out the commander of the Quds Force, the master of those proxy militia groups.

It’s no coincidence that Qassem Soleimani’s successor, Esmail Qaani, has become a bit shy about appearing in public. If you are an Iranian Quds Force officer these days, you just never know when you might meet an American drone with your name on it.

I discuss the many instances of “skin in the game” in this week’s edition of Prophecy Today Weekend. As always, you can listen live at 1 PM on Saturday open 104.9 FM or 550 AM in the Jacksonville area, or by using the Jacksonville Way Radio app. Otherwise, you can listen to the podcast later here.

Yours in freedom.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Ken Timmerman’s 14th book of non-fiction, THE IRAN HOUSE: Tales of Revolution, Persecution, War, and Intrigue, can be ordered by clicking here or by viewing my author’s page, here. 

Raising Olives in Provence, can be ordered by clicking here.

Big Pharma wins, Dr. Dave Weldon withdrawn from CDC cofirmation thumbnail

Big Pharma wins, Dr. Dave Weldon withdrawn from CDC cofirmation

/in , , , , /by

By Kelleigh Nelson

“Big Pharma needs sick people to prosper. Patients, not healthy people, are their customers. If everybody was cured of a particular illness or disease, pharmaceutical companies would lose 100% of their profits on the products they sell for that ailment. What all this means is because modern medicine is so heavily intertwined with the financial profits culture, it’s a sickness industry more than it is a health industry.” — James Morcan

“The pharmaceutical industry likes to depict itself as a research-based industry, as the source of innovative drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is their incredible PR and their nerve.” — Marcia Angell

“Since the 1920s, virtually all continuing medical and public health education is funded by pharmaceutical companies. In fact, today, the FDA can’t even tell health scientists the truth about vaccine contaminants and their likely effects. The agency is bound and gagged by proprietary laws and non-disclosure agreements forced upon them by the pharmaceutical industry. Let us not forget that the pharmaceutical industry, as a special interest group, is the number one contributor to politicians on Capitol Hill.” — Leonard Horowitz

Every year, pharmaceutical companies contribute millions of dollars to U.S. Senators and Representatives as part of a multipronged effort to influence health care lawmaking and spending priorities.  And they’re successful in buying the votes of these rewarded members.  The senators and reps care nothing for the American people, they are beholden only to those who fill their pockets. As a result, their votes aid those who fund them, not the American people they are elected to represent.

According to Statnews.com, “Seventy-two senators and 302 members of the House of Representatives cashed a check from the pharmaceutical industry ahead of the 2020 election representing more than two-thirds of Congress, according to a new STAT analysis of records for the full election cycle.

“Pfizer’s political action committee alone contributed to 228 lawmakers. Amgen’s PAC donated to 218, meaning that each company helped to fund the campaigns of nearly half the lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Overall, the sector donated $14 million.”

Opensecrets.org shows the top 20 member recipients of money from Big Pharma and health products between 1990-2024. The money comes from employees or PACs affiliated with the industry, not from the companies themselves.  Biden, Harris and Obama were the top three recipients.

For decades, Democrats have thrashed Big Pharma in their campaign ads and speeches, and the drug industry has responded by shelling out millions to the Leftists.

According to an analysis by the group, Conservatives for Lower Healthcare Costs, “Between the 2016 and 2022 election cycles, the top 10 pharmaceutical firms have given $29 million to Democrats and $24 million to Republicans.”

Open Secrets tells us that our founders funded their own campaigns and the very thought of asking for money was verboten.  Kathleen Frydl, a historian at the University of California-Berkeley, said the first fundraising committee organized by an interest group was the Congress of Industrial Organizations Political Action Committee (CIO-PAC), which was formed in 1943 to support Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 presidential bid. More than 60 years later, there are more than 3,880 active federally registered PACs. It is now 82 years later, and that number has undoubtedly grown.

Corporations distort public policy and subvert the will of the electorate by donating to politicians and expecting quid pro quo for their monetary gifts.  All corporate funding needs to be eliminated.

CDC Nominee Dr. Dave Weldon

The following three-minute video by our new Secretary of Health and Human Services lays out what he and his team will concentrate on during their first 100 days. Kennedy tells us that chronic disease is the top priority and they will examine every possible contributing factor.  He wants to Make America Healthy Again, just as we were when his uncle, John F. Kennedy, was our president from 1960 until his untimely death in 1963.

Three men have been nominated to the operating divisions within HHS, and one has already had his name yanked at the last minute.

Dr. Dave Weldon, a former congressman whose district included the Space Coast and Treasure Coast, says opposition by the pharmaceutical industry played a large role in his failure to win confirmation as director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a statement Weldon released after his nomination was withdrawn, he blamed Big Pharma for the concern that some Republican senators would vote against confirming him. “The concern of many people is that Big Pharma was behind this, which is probably true,” Weldon said. “They are, hands-down, the most powerful lobby organization in Washington, D.C., giving millions of dollars to politicians on both sides of the aisle.”

In Sharyl Attkisson’s 2019 documentary on her show, Full Measure, she interviewed eleven current and former Congressmen about their experiences with pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and agents in Washington. Dr. Weldon is interviewed at 7:40. I urge you to watch the 10-minute clip where we find out that vaccine makers don’t defend their vaccines, the federal government does that for them.  It is done in the little known “vaccine court” created by Congress in 1988.  Money for victims’ fees comes from patient fees added on to every vaccine given.

Attkisson states, “Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a world-renowned pediatric neurologist, was the government’s top expert witness in a case of a child who became autistic after a vaccine.  He testified that vaccines do not cause autism.  But now, Dr. Zimmerman has supplied new information.  He claims that during those vaccine court hearings all those years ago, he privately told government lawyers that vaccines can and did cause autism in some children.  That turnabout from the government’s own chief expert should have changed everything about the vaccine autism debate if the public were to find out.”

The United States government, the Department of Justice suppressed his true opinions.  Zimmerman then partnered with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who said, “This is one of the most consequential frauds arguably in all of human history.”  RFK Jr. was instrumental in getting Dr. Zimmerman to document his remarkable claim of the government covering up his true expert opinion on vaccines and autism.

Dr. Dave Weldon, spoke candidly about what happens to representatives who raise the issue of vaccine safety.  “It would typically be in a hallway or on the street, and you know, people would come up to you and say, you know, you really need to back off on this. It could be bad for the community or bad for the country or bad for you.”

The CDC which promotes vaccines and monitors vaccine safety never disclosed that the government’s own one-time medical expert concluded that vaccines can cause autism.  And to this day, public health officials deny that’s the case.

Dr. Peter McCullough tells us, “Physician and former Congressman, Dave Weldon, who was about to undergo his examination by the Senate panel posed the greatest risk for vaccine-crazed senators to publicly face evidence-based concerns over the safety of the ever-increasing childhood vaccine schedule and the four-year COVID-19 vaccine debacle.

“Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), a gastroenterologist from Illinois who said during the RFK panel that not a single dollar should be spent investigating the relationship between vaccination and autism.”

Close minded because of their funding by Big Pharma?  Most senators believe in vaccines, but they were exempt from the COVID mandates.

“Perhaps Cassidy was in agreement with billions of dollars spent over the past four-years on nonsensical and unproductive transgender research in laboratory animals. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) also said she would vote against Weldon. Both Cassidy and Collins voted in 2022 against reinstating military who refused the COVID-19 vaccine.”

So, freedom from mandates for them, but not for us.

Losing Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director is a massive blow to health freedom.  RFK Jr. backed his nomination.  Why?  Because Dave Weldon knew the dirt behind the CDC and the decades of lies given to the American public.

Weldon’s name was pulled telling the public, “He’s too anti-vax and didn’t have the votes.”  That is an outright lie.  Obviously, the Big Pharma funded senators wouldn’t vote for him or they’d lose their cash cow.

In 2004, Congressman Weldon asked the U.S. House Appropriations Committee chair to fund an autism research center that would be led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

“Wakefield was the first author of the 1998 study, published and later retracted in The Lancet, that linked the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism in certain children.”  Weldon wanted Wakefield to head up an autism center.  That act alone, that proved Weldon was concerned about autism and American children, was enough to sideline his nomination.

Dr. Wakefield felt there was a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.  A former CDC researcher by the name of William Thompson came to the same conclusion.

Thompson publicly admitted that he and his CDC co-authors cooked the study on MMR and autism so that it would not show any connection.  They purposely omitted vital data.

He later wrote his confession and had it posted on his attorney’s website.

August 27, 2014 Press Release, “Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., Regarding the 2004 Article Examining the Possibility of a Relationship Between MMR Vaccine and Autism”

Then he told Congressman Bill Posey that he and his CDC co-authors tossed the study data in the trash.

Thompson knew Wakefield and he apologized to him in private.  Had he spoken out about the connection of the MMR to autism, it would have helped Wakefield.

Wayback Machine has the recorded statement in an 82-second video of the phone call from whistleblower Thompson to Brian Hooker PhD.  Hooker is the Chief Scientific Officer for Children’s Health Defense.  Thompson stated that he had a boss who forced him to lie.  He also said that autism studies are 10 years behind and Congress needs to say, “Give us the data, and we’ll do an independent study.”

Video here: https://web.archive.org/web/20140917192449/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8697rSvIqhg

Conclusion

Look into Dr. Weldon’s legislative history during his time in Congress. His work on healthcare and family-focused policies speaks volumes. Congress.gov.

Dr. Weldon’s background as a physician is well-documented, especially his contributions to medical literature and public health discussions. PubMed

In a time when our children’s health and future are at stake, we must support leaders who uphold the values of family, science, and common sense, values of this nominee. Dr. Weldon’s absence from this role is a missed opportunity for America.

Where was the White House in fighting for Dr. Weldon?  Or did Susie Wiles put the kibosh on Dr. Weldon?

Two Republican Senators, Collins and Cassidy, cost Weldon the confirmation for CDC Director.  Those are the politicians who need to be primaried.

©2025 All rights reserved.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.