Home Blog

Supreme Court Gives Trump Green Light To Resume Third-Country Deportations

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0

President Donald Trump’s deportation campaign just got a green light from the Supreme Court — with a bigger legal showdown still ahead.

The justices on Tuesday, September 29, allowed the administration to resume its contested third-country removal policy, pausing a Massachusetts federal court judgment that had blocked it. The apparent 6–3 split left Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson opposing the stay.

The policy allows immigration officials to send people with final removal orders to countries other than those specified in their orders, often nations other than their homelands. The Court also agreed to hear the case in December, setting up a full review of the administration’s authority.

DHS Celebrates The Ruling

DHS General Counsel James Percival welcomed the decision, saying the department’s third-country removal policy was back in effect and calling it the administration’s second Supreme Court victory in less than a week.

“A bad day for criminal illegals and open borders activists alike,” Percival wrote on X, according to The Daily Wire.

The administration argues that third-country removals provide a way to deport people whose home countries will not accept them, including individuals convicted of serious crimes.

In its September 24 emergency application, Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the policy as “an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens.”

A Dispute Over Notice And Safety

The fight centers on what protections migrants must receive before being sent to another country.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston found that the administration’s procedures did not provide adequate notice or a meaningful chance to raise fears of torture or persecution at the proposed destination, NPR reported.

The administration contends that credible assurances from a receiving country that it will not persecute or torture deportees can permit prompt removal. Its court filing says that, without those assurances, the policy provides notice and an opportunity to raise fears of mistreatment.

Government lawyers also said the lower-court ruling had forced officials to cancel a flight carrying 70 people with criminal convictions to three countries, triggering additional diplomatic negotiations. Those assertions were part of the administration’s request for emergency relief.

Attorneys challenging the policy argue that removing people without meaningful notice can expose them to serious harm. Their court papers described allegations of arbitrary detention, beatings, sexual assault and people being sent onward to countries from which they had already received protection, according to NPR.

December Brings The Larger Showdown

Tuesday’s order gives Trump an immediate enforcement victory, but the policy’s ultimate legality remains unresolved.

The justices will consider whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether it could grant relief covering the entire class of migrants, and whether the government’s policy violates federal immigration law, constitutional due process or protections against torture.

For now, the lower-court judgment remains paused while the Supreme Court proceeds toward a final decision.

Trump-backed Paxton Privately Says GOP Convention Hurt Republican Candidates

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0
Political representation of parties making money

President Donald Trump’s Dallas convention was supposed to give Republicans a boost before November. Behind closed doors, one of his most prominent Senate candidates reportedly offered a far less encouraging assessment.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Republican nominee for Senate, told conservative donors and lobbyists that the gathering had hurt his campaign’s numbers, according to an audio recording obtained by The New York Times.

“So to be honest with you, the numbers — when we did that convention — it dropped our numbers. Everybody’s numbers dropped. Right now, yeah, not good,” Paxton said, according to the newspaper.

The remarks put Paxton’s private assessment at odds with Trump’s public claim that the convention helped him. They also come as Republicans pour money into a surprisingly competitive fight to hold a Texas Senate seat.

Private remarks draw a campaign rebuttal

The Times reported that the recording came from a private Washington fundraiser on Sept. 24 attended by roughly a dozen people. An attendee who opposes Paxton’s campaign provided the audio and received anonymity because the remarks were private.

In the recording, a questioner asks, “Do you feel like he’s a little bit of a drag?”

The newspaper cautioned that the audio is muffled at times and does not clearly establish whom the questioner meant. Paxton’s response, however, specifically addressed the convention and what he described as declining numbers.

Three other people with knowledge of the event confirmed Paxton attended, according to the Times. Two remembered the question, and one recalled his response about the convention’s negative consequences.

Paxton’s campaign sharply disputed the report.

Nick Maddux, a senior adviser, called it “more manipulated nonsense from The New York Times to create a story that doesn’t exist.”

“Our latest poll from the last week has Ken Paxton leading by three points, and every serious pollster will tell you that our numbers have improved since early September,” Maddux told the newspaper.

He added that Paxton expects to win and looks forward to “closing strong alongside President Trump.”

Trump offered a different assessment

Paxton has closely aligned himself with Trump, whose support helped him defeat Sen. John Cornyn in this year’s Republican primary, the Times reported.

The Dallas convention gave Paxton a prominent platform in his home state and opportunities to connect with Republican donors. Trump praised him onstage, even while teasing his appearance.

Afterward, the president offered an assessment that directly contrasted with Paxton’s recorded remarks.

“The fact that we had such a successful convention really helped Ken Paxton,” Trump said, according to the Times. “He was a big part of it.”

“The convention helped Ken Paxton a lot,” he added.

Whether the gathering actually hurt Republican candidates remains unresolved. The Times reported that public surveys of the Texas Senate race did not appear to show a significant convention-related change.

A costly fight in Texas

The broader polling picture nevertheless shows why Republicans are concerned.

As of Sept. 30, RealClearPolling’s average put Democratic state Rep. James Talarico ahead of Paxton, 47.6% to 44.7%, a 2.9-point advantage. That differs from the campaign’s claim of a three-point lead in its own poll.

Kristi Noem Files for Divorce After 34 Years of Marriage

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has filed for divorce from her husband, Bryon, bringing a 34-year marriage to court after months of public speculation about the couple.

The case appeared in Hamlin County, South Dakota, court records this week. The filing cites irreconcilable differences, according to NewsNation’s report on the documents. The Noems married on May 23, 1992, and have three adult children.

The public filing gives no further explanation for the split. Bryon Noem told Nexstar’s KELO on Tuesday, “I can’t comment right now,” according to the NewsNation account. The outlet said it was unable to reach Kristi Noem.

Months of speculation

The marriage had drawn attention since late March, when the Daily Mail published photos and messages it said showed Bryon Noem interacting with online fetish performers. A representative for Kristi Noem said at the time that the family had been “blindsided” and asked for privacy and prayers. The public divorce filing does not establish what prompted Noem’s decision.

In July, Kristi Noem’s mother, Corinne Arnold, told the Daily Mail the couple was headed for divorce. Bryon was absent from the August unveiling of a statue honoring Kristi’s time as South Dakota governor. At the event, she said her family, including Bryon, had supported her during her years in office.

The Trump administration connection

The filing also renews attention on Noem’s final weeks at the Department of Homeland Security. During a March House Judiciary Committee hearing, a Democratic lawmaker asked about reports of a romantic relationship between Noem and Corey Lewandowski, a former Trump campaign manager who worked as an adviser at DHS. Noem dismissed the question as “tabloid garbage.” Both Noem and Lewandowski have denied the allegations. The divorce filing offers no evidence about those claims. cbsnews.com

Lewandowski’s authority at DHS had separately come under congressional scrutiny. ProPublica reported that agency records contradicted Noem’s testimony denying he had a role in approving contracts. That dispute concerned government oversight, separate from the couple’s divorce.

President Donald Trump removed Noem from DHS in March and named her special envoy for the Shield of the Americas, a Western Hemisphere security initiative. She previously served as South Dakota’s governor from 2019 until joining Trump’s Cabinet in 2025.

For now, neither Noem has publicly explained the divorce filing beyond the irreconcilable differences stated in the court record.

Trump Publicly Rebukes His China Ambassador Over Stunning Xi Weapons Claim

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0

President Donald Trump poured cold water on a remarkable account from his own ambassador to China, saying he never discussed selling American weapons to Chinese President Xi Jinping and suggesting the envoy had confused China with Taiwan.

U.S. Ambassador David Perdue made the claim Sunday on Fox News Sunday while defending the administration’s approach to arms sales to Taiwan. Perdue said Trump had explained to Xi that the United States sells arms around the world, then added: “He actually asked President Xi, would he like to buy some, at one point.” Perdue did not say when the purported exchange happened or describe Xi’s response.

Trump appeared caught off guard when a reporter raised the account at the White House on Monday.

“To China? You mean to Taiwan?” the president asked. After the reporter clarified, Trump replied, “I never heard of that one. I’m going to have to ask him.”

Watch:

Trump said China would probably want American equipment because, in his view, the United States makes better weapons. He briefly mused that selling them might be a good idea, but then rejected Perdue’s account: “We didn’t discuss that.” He suggested Perdue had been referring to Taiwan.

State Department Draws a Hard Line

The public contradiction followed a blunt response from the State Department. “U.S. law prohibits arms sales to China and there is no offer or plan to sell arms to China,” the department said in a statement to ABC News. A U.S. official separately told the outlet the government had no plans for such a sale.

Federal defense export rules list China among countries subject to a policy of denying approvals for defense articles and services. That makes Perdue’s account striking even as Trump insists the conversation never occurred.

Perdue’s comment arose from a different, long-running dispute: U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan, the self-governing island China claims as its territory. Fox host Shannon Bream pressed the ambassador about concerns that arms deliveries or approvals for Taiwan had been delayed to avoid angering Beijing. Perdue rejected the suggestion that Trump was abandoning Taiwan, saying the president remained strong on its defense and that the two leaders had discussed future arms sales to the island.

The White House’s summary of Xi’s state visit described talks on trade, Iran, strategic stability and trilateral arms control. It did not announce any proposed sale of American weapons to China.

For now, the ambassador’s account and the president’s account remain at odds. Trump said he would ask Perdue about the remark. Neither man has publicly explained what Perdue was referring to, while the State Department says an arms offer to China is off the table.

FBI Deputy Director Andrew Bailey Resigns as Trump Administration Sees More High-Profile Departures

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
1

FBI co-deputy director Andrew Bailey announced Monday that he is leaving the bureau after just over a year, adding another senior departure to President Donald Trump’s administration.

Bailey, a former Missouri attorney general, said he is stepping down to return to his family in Missouri. He thanked Trump, Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel for the opportunity to serve. His resignation takes effect October 2, according to CBS News.

“With great pride in what we have accomplished, I am announcing that I am stepping down to return to my family in Missouri,” Bailey wrote on X. He expressed confidence that Patel would continue efforts to reform the FBI, fight violent crime and restore public trust. Patel praised Bailey’s work, saying the departing official helped return the bureau to its core mission.

Another Change at the FBI

Bailey joined the bureau in 2025 under an unusual arrangement that divided the deputy director role. He initially shared the title with Dan Bongino, the former Secret Service agent and conservative broadcaster who left the FBI in January. Career FBI official Christopher Raia later became the other co-deputy director. It remains unclear whether Raia will serve alone in the role after Bailey’s departure.

Bailey’s work included election-related investigations. He appeared with then-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard when federal agents seized records from a Fulton County, Georgia, election facility in January, ABC News reported.

CBS News reported that Bailey had a strained working relationship with Patel, citing people familiar with the bureau’s internal dynamics. Bailey’s public statement gave family as his reason for leaving and voiced support for Patel. The reported tensions have not been established as the cause of his resignation.

Other Senior Trump Officials Have Left

The announcement follows several prominent departures elsewhere in the administration. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt completed her final day in August and moved to an outside advisory role. Trump also announced that White House counsel David Warrington would leave for the private sector, with Will Scharf succeeding him September 1.

James Braid, the White House’s director of legislative affairs and a key liaison to Congress, was another recent exit. Trump announced in August that Braid would leave in September.

The officials held different jobs and gave different reasons for leaving. Bailey’s departure is especially notable at the FBI because it follows Bongino’s exit and leaves the bureau’s shared deputy director structure in limbo.

Bush-Era White House Ethics Lawyer Raises Impeachment Alarm Over Trump TV Ads

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
2
White House image via Wikimedia Commons

A former White House ethics lawyer says government-funded television ads promoting President Donald Trump could cross a line serious enough to warrant impeachment.

Richard Painter, who served as chief ethics lawyer in President George W. Bush’s White House, made the warning Sunday as ads featuring Trump aired ahead of the November midterms. “This could be an impeachable offense,” Painter wrote on X, referring to comments he made to The New York Times. He argued that a president has no right to use taxpayer money for campaign advertising.

The impeachment warning is Painter’s assessment. The White House disputes his description of the ads, calling them public service announcements.

The ads behind the fight

One 30-second spot flashes images of Trump while touting tax cuts, manufacturing and law enforcement. It uses audio of the president promising to defeat “communism, socialism and Marxism in America,” followed by praise from UFC CEO Dana White. The screen identifies it as “Paid for by the U.S. Government.” ABC News reported that the spot ran on Fox News and Newsmax in several markets; ad-tracking firm AdImpact estimated the buy at roughly $14,000 as of September 24.

A separate black-and-white spot features Trump’s 2024 campaign rhetoric about the “deep state,” “warmongers” and the news media. The New York Times reported that the footage had previously run as a campaign ad. Painter told the Times that using federal funds for the spots could constitute an abuse of power and an impeachable offense.

The dispute centers on whether the ads serve a government purpose or promote a political figure with public money. Painter contends that federal restrictions on government-funded political propaganda apply. His warning is not a legal finding or an announcement of impeachment proceedings.

Criticism reaches both parties

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., criticized the spending after being shown one of the ads on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday. He said public officials, including Trump, should not spend public money on ads for themselves. Kennedy acknowledged that the White House sees the spot differently and said he believed there probably was a rule against using public funds for self-promotion.

The watchdog group Public Citizen filed a complaint Friday with the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel. It alleged that the ads violate restrictions on government propaganda and political activity, and called for them to be pulled. The complaint states the group’s allegations; it does not establish that a violation occurred.

The White House said Friday that Trump is not on the November ballot and that the ads contain no call to vote. It cited government-funded public information campaigns under previous presidents, including messages about Medicare, health insurance enrollment and COVID-19 vaccination. The administration says its spots promote patriotism and clearly disclose who paid for them.

Supreme Court Hands Trump A Major Election-Year Win

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0
Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant victory Friday, clearing the way for his administration to revive an expanded federal database that states can use to check voters’ citizenship ahead of the November midterms.

In a 6–3 order, the justices paused a lower court ruling that had shut down the administration’s overhaul of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE. The move allows the Department of Homeland Security to operate the expanded system while the legal fight continues.

The decision gives Trump a boost in his push to tighten voter eligibility checks. It does not authorize a broad, last-minute purge of voter rolls, and the Court has yet to issue a final ruling on the program’s legality.

What the ruling changes

SAVE dates to 1986 and originally drew mainly on immigration records. Following a March 2025 executive order, the administration connected it to Social Security Administration records and added the ability to search multiple names at once. State and local election officials can use the expanded system to check whether people registering or already on voter rolls are citizens.

The League of Women Voters, several affiliates and a privacy group challenged those changes. A federal district judge in Washington set aside the overhaul in June, finding violations of the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. A divided federal appeals court then refused to put that ruling on hold.

The Supreme Court took a different view. Its unsigned majority opinion said federal law likely permits the information sharing at issue and that the government would be harmed if it could not use the system it considers best suited to helping states verify citizenship. As ABC News reported, the ruling lifts the lower court’s block for now.

Federal law requires states to finish programs designed to systematically remove ineligible voters at least 90 days before a federal election. The majority acknowledged that the rule limits the immediate effect of its decision, but said election officials may still make individualized inquiries during that period. The Court left for a separate case the question of how the 90-day rule applies to programs targeting noncitizens.

A sharp dissent

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, warned that outdated citizenship information could put eligible voters at risk. The majority itself noted the case of a naturalized citizen whose Social Security records did not accurately reflect her citizenship, though it concluded the challengers’ legal claims were unlikely to succeed.

The administration argues the expanded tool helps states identify ineligible registrations. In its Supreme Court filing, it said the system had confirmed more than 65 million voters as citizens across 26 states and flagged 28,635 potential noncitizens. That latter figure is not a count of proven illegal votes. ABC News has reported that documented noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare.

Trump’s Arch Plan Pushes Ahead After Preservation Talks Break Down

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0
Reflecting Pool

President Donald Trump’s planned triumphal arch has hit a new stage in its fight with preservation officials: A federal council is ending talks aimed at resolving objections to the 250-foot monument near Arlington National Cemetery.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation told the National Park Service Thursday that it was “terminating consultation” under the National Historic Preservation Act. The move follows months of disagreement over the arch’s effect on historic views around Memorial Circle, Arlington Memorial Bridge and the approach to the cemetery.

That does not give the project final approval. The council plans to send advisory comments to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum by October 7. Burgum must consider and respond to them before making a final decision under this preservation review. The public and consulting parties have until September 29 to submit their views.

A fight over historic views

The Park Service identified 42 historic properties that could be affected by the project, including six National Historic Landmarks. Its assessment found that the arch would have adverse effects on historic settings and sightlines by adding a prominent structure to the commemorative landscape.

In the council’s letter, the Park Service said further talks on the existing proposal were unlikely to produce an agreement. It also said alternatives that would avoid or reduce the adverse effects would change the project’s fundamental nature and prevent it from meeting its goals.

Virginia officials pushed back. In a letter described by ABC News, state preservation official Samantha Henderson argued that the proposed measures would “further highlight how this undertaking has marred rather than added to these spaces.” She said public and local-government concerns had not been directly addressed in a way that showed an effort to reach agreement.

The administration says the arch would celebrate American triumphs and beautify the capital. Opponents argue that its scale would overwhelm the solemn route between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The proposed site is Memorial Circle on Columbia Island, at the Washington, D.C., end of Arlington Memorial Bridge.

Trump adds a military twist

Trump has also given the project a new purpose. In a Sunday Truth Social post, he said that “at the strong request of the United States Military” he had agreed to turn the arch into a “top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch.” He said it would hold drones, provide positions for snipers and store sniper ammunition. The Pentagon declined to comment when ABC News asked about the announcement.

The National Capital Planning Commission approved preliminary site and building plans in July. It requested more information about the arch’s height, traffic effects and aviation-related lighting before final review. That final approval has yet to be granted.

The preservation dispute now moves from negotiations toward a decision at Interior.

Letitia James’ DOGE Lawsuit Against Trump Ends in Courtroom Defeat

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0

New York Attorney General Letitia James took President Donald Trump to court over his DOGE team’s access to sensitive Treasury systems. This week, the judge closed the case — and James’s coalition walked away without the lasting order it sought.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas dismissed the 19-state lawsuit Wednesday, finding that the states’ challenge to DOGE personnel accessing Treasury data had become moot. The executive order that created the temporary DOGE organization expired July 4, and the Treasury DOGE team has since disbanded.

“There is no longer any action to enjoin,” Vargas wrote. She also rejected the states’ remaining claims over a system designed to flag federal payments for further review. Their complaint did not identify a specific payment owed to a state that the process had frozen or canceled.

For James, a longtime Trump adversary, it was a sharp turn from the early days of the case. When she and 18 other attorneys general filed suit in February 2025, James accused the administration of giving DOGE improper access to the federal payment system and warned that the team could interfere with funds for state programs.

At the time, she declared that Trump “does not have the power to give away Americans’ private information to anyone he chooses.” Her office celebrated an early court order restricting DOGE access as a “swift victory.”

An early win that did not settle the fight

James did win a preliminary injunction in February 2025. Vargas initially barred the Treasury DOGE team from Bureau of the Fiscal Service systems, which handle federal payments and hold sensitive financial data. The judge said the administration’s hurried process for granting access was likely arbitrary and capricious and raised serious security concerns.

But the restrictions changed as the administration supplied details about vetting, training and safeguards. In May 2025, Vargas allowed DOGE-affiliated Treasury personnel to access the systems if they followed the specified procedures. This week’s ruling ended the broader case altogether.

The judge did not rule that DOGE’s original access was lawful. She found that the access dispute no longer presented a live controversy because the team and its governing executive order had expired. Vargas noted that two former DOGE team members still work at Treasury in other roles, but the DOGE reporting structure no longer exists.

The states’ separate argument about an automated payment-review process survived that mootness question, only to fail on the allegations in their complaint. A system that flags payments for review, Vargas wrote, does not by itself establish that the administration unlawfully withheld money Congress appropriated. The states had not identified a payment to them that the system actually paused.

Tucker Carlson Calls on Trump’s Cabinet to Remove Him Under 25th Amendment

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
6
Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Tucker Carlson’s break with President Donald Trump has reached a startling new point: The former Fox News host says Trump’s own Cabinet should have moved to strip him of presidential power over his threats against Iran.

In a Thursday interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, Carlson argued that Trump’s rhetoric about the war warranted action under the 25th Amendment. It was an extraordinary demand from a commentator who once championed Trump and spoke on his behalf at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

“He should have been removed from office by his own Cabinet secretaries the moment he threatened a nuclear attack,” Carlson said, according to Mediaite’s account of the interview.

When Inskeep asked whether he meant the 25th Amendment, Carlson confirmed it. He also described Trump’s remarks as a threat of a first-use nuclear strike. That is Carlson’s characterization: Trump’s quoted warning about Iran did not explicitly say he would use nuclear weapons.

The Iran warning behind the rupture

In his address to the United Nations on Tuesday, Trump presented Iran with a choice between a deal and possible destruction, asking whether he should “annihilate the Islamic Republic.” Mediaite quoted the fuller passage. The White House’s summary of the address emphasized his pledge to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and cast his approach as a show of American strength.

Carlson sees the war in sharply different terms. NPR reported that he questioned whether Trump had made the decision to begin it independently and alleged that Israel had effectively forced his hand. Those are Carlson’s assertions, not established facts. NPR said the White House, asked to comment, instead pointed to a Trump social media post attacking Carlson and others who oppose his Iran policy.

The public split carries political weight because Carlson was once among Trump’s most prominent defenders on the right. His call now goes beyond criticizing a military decision: He wants senior officials inside the administration to act against the president.

What the 25th Amendment would require

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet’s principal officers to declare in writing that a president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. The vice president would then become acting president. If the president contested the declaration and the officials persisted, two-thirds of both houses of Congress would have to agree for the vice president to continue acting in that role.

The provision is a process for presidential inability, not a finding of criminal guilt or a substitute for impeachment. Carlson’s accusation that Trump’s words constituted a crime does not, on its own, trigger it.

For now, Carlson’s remarks underscore how far one of Trump’s best-known former allies has moved over Iran. The unanswered question is whether his appeal resonates with anyone in an administration whose participation the constitutional process would require.

123...351Page 1 of 351
© Great America News Desk 2022