Latest

    Government

    Home Government

    Supreme Court Deals Blow To Trump, GOP In Major Mail Ballot Ruling

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3
    Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee a significant setback Monday, ruling 5-4 that states may continue counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day as long as they were postmarked by Election Day.

    The decision preserves election laws in more than a dozen states that provide a short grace period for mailed ballots to reach election officials, rejecting Republican arguments that federal law requires all ballots to be received before polls close on Election Day.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices.

    “The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose,” Barrett wrote.

    The court’s four remaining conservative justices dissented.

    The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, centered on a Mississippi law allowing absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within five business days. Republicans argued that the practice violated federal statutes establishing a uniform national Election Day for federal races.

    The ruling leaves intact similar laws in 14 states, including both Republican- and Democrat-led states, as well as comparable provisions for military and overseas voters in many other states. More than 750,000 ballots nationwide were counted under such grace-period laws during the 2024 election, according to court filings and reporting on the case.

    The decision represents a legal defeat for Trump, who has spent years criticizing mail voting and has repeatedly argued that elections should be decided on Election Day.

    Trump’s Justice Department backed the Republican National Committee’s challenge before the Supreme Court, continuing the administration’s broader effort to tighten election rules ahead of the 2026 midterms.

    The ruling also exposed divisions within the Republican Party.

    Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican, defended his state’s law throughout the litigation, arguing that ballots cast by Election Day should still count if postal delays prevent them from arriving immediately.

    Mississippi’s position received support from organizations including the Democratic National Committee, the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, while the RNC was backed by House Republicans’ campaign arm, Citizens United and several Republican-led states.

    The legal battle began after the Republican National Committee and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi challenged the state’s absentee ballot law. A federal district court upheld Mississippi’s policy before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Republicans, prompting Watson to appeal to the Supreme Court. Monday’s ruling reverses that appeals court decision.

    The decision arrives as Trump continues pushing for stricter election rules nationwide.

    In March, the president signed an executive order aimed at restricting mail voting and requiring additional proof of citizenship for federal elections. That order remains tied up in ongoing litigation in lower courts.

    This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

    Stand with Rudy Giuliani. Add your name to “THE PEOPLE’S PARDON” today to drop the charges, protect his freedom, and help us reach our critical citizen goal.

    Fourth Federal Judge Blocks Trump Bid To Create National Voter Citizenship List

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to President Donald Trump’s effort to reshape election administration, striking down key portions of an executive order that would create a federally compiled list of eligible voters and impose new restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

    U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts ruled that the administration exceeded its constitutional authority, becoming the fourth federal judge to reject major provisions of Trump’s March 31 executive order on elections.

    “The President ‘plays no direct role in the process’ of appointing electors, ‘nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do,'” Talwani wrote in her decision, according to court filings cited by The Hill.

    The ruling sided with 22 Democratic-led states, the District of Columbia, and attorneys representing Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who argued that the Constitution gives states—not the White House—the primary authority to administer elections.

    What Trump’s Order Would Have Done

    Trump’s executive order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” directed the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to compile state-specific lists of individuals confirmed to be U.S. citizens using federal databases. The lists would then be transmitted to state election officials before federal elections.

    The order also instructed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters appearing on those federally compiled citizenship lists. In addition, states would have been required to use individualized Intelligent Mail barcodes on ballot envelopes so ballots could be tracked through the postal system.

    The White House argued the measures were designed to strengthen election integrity by ensuring that only eligible U.S. citizens receive mail ballots. Administration officials have also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, legislation that would establish proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration through federal law rather than executive action.

    States Argued the Order Was Already Causing Harm

    The Trump administration asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the states had not yet suffered any concrete injury because federal agencies were still developing rules to implement the order.

    Talwani rejected that argument.

    According to The Hill, the judge noted that many states have already spent millions preparing election materials for the 2026 midterms that would no longer comply with the executive order.

    Massachusetts alone has already spent approximately $3 million on mail ballot envelopes, while Maine and Rhode Island have each spent more than $50,000 on ballot materials lacking the required Intelligent Mail barcodes. Delaware also informed the court it had already purchased envelopes and had not budgeted funds to replace them.

    Those expenditures demonstrated that the order was already affecting state election planning, Talwani concluded.

    Constitutional Limits

    Talwani’s opinion echoed earlier federal rulings that found the Constitution assigns election administration primarily to the states and Congress—not the president acting through executive order.

    She ruled that key portions of Trump’s directive “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers,” concluding that federal agencies cannot assume authority over election procedures that Congress has not granted them.

    The decision follows several other court losses for the administration this week involving different parts of Trump’s election agenda, including provisions requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and expanded use of federal databases to verify voter eligibility.

    USPS Says It Will Follow Court Orders

    The ruling also comes as the U.S. Postal Service prepares for the 2026 election cycle.

    Postmaster General David Steiner told lawmakers Wednesday that the Postal Service would comply with whatever federal court orders ultimately govern the handling of election mail, according to The Hill.

    The administration is expected to appeal Thursday’s decision, setting up another chapter in the broader legal battle over the limits of presidential authority in administering federal elections.

    Stand with Rudy Giuliani. Add your name to “THE PEOPLE’S PARDON” today to drop the charges, protect his freedom, and help us reach our critical citizen goal.

    Judge Permanently Blocks Trump Order Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    8

    A federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked a key Trump administration election order that would have required Americans to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.

    U.S. District Judge Denise Casper ruled that the Constitution does not give the president authority to unilaterally rewrite election rules, siding with Democratic attorneys general and voting-rights groups that challenged the order. The decision converts a previous preliminary injunction into a permanent ban on the enforcement of major provisions of the executive order.

    The executive order, signed during President Donald Trump’s second term, sought to require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, prohibit states from counting mail ballots received after Election Day even if they were postmarked on time, and potentially withhold certain federal funds from states that refused to comply.

    In her ruling, Casper wrote that election administration authority rests with the states and Congress—not the White House.

    “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.

    The ruling marks the latest legal setback for Trump’s election agenda. Multiple federal courts have already blocked portions of the administration’s efforts to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements, alter voter registration procedures, and restrict mail voting through executive action.

    Supporters of the order argued it was necessary to ensure only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections. Critics countered that documented cases of noncitizen voting are exceedingly rare and warned that proof-of-citizenship mandates could disenfranchise eligible voters who lack passports, birth certificates, or other qualifying documents.

    The fight is far from over.

    Trump continues to push Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, legislation that would establish a federal proof-of-citizenship requirement through statute rather than executive order. The bill has cleared the House but remains stalled in the Senate amid procedural and political opposition.

    The Supreme Court is also expected to weigh in soon on a separate but closely watched dispute over whether states may count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day if they were mailed on time, a decision that could affect election procedures in more than a dozen states.

    Stand with Rudy Giuliani. Add your name to “THE PEOPLE’S PARDON” today to drop the charges, protect his freedom, and help us reach our critical citizen goal.

    Judge Rejects WHCD Shooter’s Bid to Boot Blanche, Pirro From Case

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    A federal judge on Monday swatted down an effort by accused White House Correspondents’ Dinner gunman Cole Allen to force Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro off the case, ruling that neither official has a conflict of interest despite attending the event that erupted in gunfire.

    U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden rejected Allen’s argument that Blanche and Pirro should be disqualified because they were present at the April 25 White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner and later acknowledged they could have been among the victims had the alleged attacker made it inside the ballroom.

    “In line with longstanding precedent, the Court finds that neither the officials’ dinner attendance nor their statements after the fact demonstrate a conflict of interest,” McFadden wrote in an 18-page opinion. “Nor does Pirro’s friendship with the President.”

    Allen’s attorneys had argued that Blanche and Pirro were potential victims and witnesses, creating at least the appearance of a conflict. They also pointed to Pirro’s longstanding relationship with President Trump and her public comments identifying Trump as one of the alleged targets.

    McFadden wasn’t buying it.

    Citing Allen’s own writings, the judge noted that the suspect allegedly intended to target “administration officials” broadly rather than any specific individual.

    “Allen did intend to harm administration officials. He did not, however, name particular targets,” McFadden wrote.

    “Nothing suggests that Allen knew that either Blanche or Pirro would attend the dinner. The focus on the administration at large, rather than particular individuals, dilutes the potential biasing effect.”

    The judge further ruled that neither Blanche nor Pirro qualifies as a victim under the law and that both are unlikely to serve as trial witnesses. Their continued involvement in prosecutorial decisions, he said, does not threaten Allen’s right to a fair trial.

    McFadden also dismissed claims that Pirro’s friendship with Trump — and Trump’s pardon of her ex-husband during his first term — created a disqualifying conflict.

    “Presidents routinely select high-ranking Justice Department officials from among their friends and supporters,” the judge wrote.

    “Pirro’s relationship with Trump is hardly an aberration. And the Court sees no reason, on this record, that she cannot fulfill her duties because of that friendship.”

    Allen, a 31-year-old California tutor and computer engineer, has pleaded not guilty to charges stemming from the shocking attack that sent the Washington Hilton into chaos and prompted the evacuation of President Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other top administration officials.

    Federal prosecutors allege Allen traveled from California to Washington armed with a shotgun, handgun and multiple knives, checked into the hotel hosting the annual media gala, and then attempted to breach security while targeting Trump administration officials. Authorities say he fired a shotgun at a Secret Service officer near a security checkpoint before being tackled and arrested. The wounded agent survived because of a bulletproof vest.

    According to court filings, Allen allegedly emailed relatives a manifesto shortly before the attack outlining his grievances against the administration and indicating his intent to carry out violence against senior government officials. Prosecutors have charged him with attempted assassination of the president, assaulting a federal officer and multiple firearms offenses. If convicted on the most serious count, he could face life in prison.

    The failed bid to remove Blanche and Pirro marks another setback for Allen’s defense team as the high-profile prosecution moves toward trial.

    Meanwhile, the White House Correspondents’ Association has announced plans to hold a rescheduled version of the dinner in July with significantly enhanced security measures.

    Stand with Rudy Giuliani. Add your name to “THE PEOPLE’S PARDON” today to drop the charges, protect his freedom, and help us reach our critical citizen goal.

    Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Proposed $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1

    A federal judge on Friday issued an injunction preventing the Trump administration from moving forward with its proposed $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” citing concerns that administration officials have not formally committed to abandoning the initiative.

    According to ABC News, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema questioned why Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has not provided a sworn statement confirming that the Department of Justice will not establish the fund. During a court hearing, Brinkema repeatedly emphasized that Blanche’s refusal to make such a commitment under penalty of perjury left a significant gap in the government’s position.

    The fund was announced by the Department of Justice last month and was intended to compensate individuals who claim they were improperly targeted by the Biden administration. Critics have argued that the proposal could result in taxpayer funds being used to compensate some individuals charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    Brinkema pointed to recent comments by President Donald Trump that appeared to support compensation for Jan. 6 defendants. In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press that aired earlier this month, Trump said, “If it was up to me, I’d pay them the kind of money that they deserve. People have been destroyed. Lives have been destroyed.”

    The proposed fund was part of a settlement arrangement under which Trump agreed to drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, along with two separate civil claims totaling approximately $230 million related to the Russia investigation and the 2022 FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago residence. The arrangement sparked bipartisan criticism and allegations of self-dealing.

    Justice Department attorneys have argued that the lawsuit challenging the fund is now moot because the government does not intend to move forward with the program. However, during Friday’s hearing, Brinkema repeatedly pressed DOJ attorney Andrew Block about why Blanche had not rescinded the order establishing the fund.

    When asked whether he knew why Blanche had not withdrawn the directive, Block responded that he did not and could not speak on the acting attorney general’s behalf.

    Brinkema expressed frustration with that response, stating that the government’s unwillingness to provide a definitive answer created a “huge gap in the record.” She added that issuing an injunction would cause no apparent harm to the government if officials truly had no intention of implementing the fund.

    The judge gave the administration one week to submit a formal declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, stating that the Anti-Weaponization Fund will not be established. Brinkema indicated that such a filing could pave the way for the case to be dismissed.

    Throughout the hearing, Brinkema cited Trump’s recent public statements regarding the fund, including criticism directed at her after she temporarily halted the initiative earlier this month. Trump referred to Brinkema as a “radical left judge” following that decision.

    “When the president of the United States says he’s disappointed that something is not going forward,” Brinkema said, it raises concerns that the proposal could return in the future.

    The judge also revealed that an individual had recently submitted an application seeking compensation from the proposed fund directly to the court, underscoring public confusion surrounding the initiative.

    “We had to send it back,” Brinkema said.

    Brinkema additionally questioned the legality of the settlement arrangement that created the fund, referencing a recent order from a federal judge in Florida requiring Trump’s attorneys to respond to allegations that they may have misled the court.

    At one point during the proceedings, Brinkema cited an amicus brief filed by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) urging the court to permanently block the fund because of concerns that it could benefit individuals involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

    According to ABC News, Brinkema said the filing demonstrated strong public interest in preventing the fund’s creation and questioned whether nearly $1.8 billion should be directed toward a relatively small group of individuals whose compensation would be opposed by many Americans.

    The injunction will remain in place while the administration decides whether to provide the sworn assurances requested by the court.

    Stand with Rudy Giuliani. Add your name to “THE PEOPLE’S PARDON” today to drop the charges, protect his freedom, and help us reach our critical citizen goal.

    Jailed Crypto King Sam Bankman-Fried Begs Trump For Pardon

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54581054338/, Public Domain,

    Disgraced crypto mogul Sam Bankman-Fried has officially thrown himself on President Trump’s mercy, filing a formal application for a presidential pardon while serving a 25-year prison sentence for one of the largest financial frauds in modern American history.

    According to records maintained by the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, the fallen FTX founder recently submitted a request for a “pardon after completion of sentence,” with the application now listed as pending review.

    The move marks the latest twist in the spectacular downfall of the former cryptocurrency billionaire, who went from being Washington’s favorite crypto wunderkind to a convicted fraudster accused of stealing billions from customers.

    A federal jury found Bankman-Fried guilty on multiple fraud and conspiracy charges after prosecutors proved he illegally diverted customer funds from FTX to prop up his hedge fund Alameda Research, finance lavish spending, make venture investments, and shower politicians with campaign donations. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison in March 2024.

    From Democrat Megadonor to Trump Pardon Seeker

    Bankman-Fried’s pardon request carries an extra layer of political irony.

    Before FTX imploded, he was one of the Democrat Party’s biggest donors, pouring millions into Democratic candidates and causes during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles.

    But since landing behind bars, the former crypto executive has increasingly sought to align himself with Trump and the MAGA movement, publicly criticizing the Biden Justice Department and portraying himself as a victim of political persecution. Reports indicate Bankman-Fried and his family have spent months exploring avenues to secure presidential clemency.

    The effort appears to be facing long odds.

    In January, Trump told The New York Times he had no plans to pardon Bankman-Fried, a position that has since been reiterated by White House officials.

    Trump’s Expanding Crypto Pardon Record

    Still, Bankman-Fried may be encouraged by Trump’s increasingly aggressive use of presidential clemency during his second term.

    Trump has already issued a series of controversial pardons involving high-profile figures from the cryptocurrency world. Most notably, he pardoned Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, who pleaded guilty in 2023 to anti-money laundering violations and served a four-month prison sentence.

    Trump has also extended clemency to BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes and other crypto-linked figures, fueling speculation that additional industry players could seek similar treatment.

    Critics argue the pattern reinforces the perception that wealthy and well-connected defendants have greater access to presidential mercy than ordinary Americans. Recent reporting has highlighted a growing ecosystem of lobbyists, attorneys, and political operatives attempting to secure pardons through connections to Trump’s orbit.

    Progressives Blast Pardon Push

    Bankman-Fried’s latest maneuver quickly drew condemnation from financial reform advocates.

    Americans for Financial Reform, a progressive nonprofit watchdog, blasted the request as “one more striking indication of the level of impunity that crypto industry figures expect from the President.”

    “This particular wish may or may not be granted, but the request — despite Bankman-Fried’s conviction on multiple counts of fraud — should come as little surprise,” the group said Monday.

    Appeal Still Pending

    The pardon application comes as Bankman-Fried continues to fight his conviction in court.

    His appeal remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and he has also sought a new trial, arguing prosecutors falsely portrayed FTX’s finances and that additional witnesses could challenge the government’s case.

    For now, however, the once-celebrated crypto king remains locked behind bars — waiting to see whether the president who says he won’t pardon him ultimately changes his mind.

    We don’t have to guess what the Democrats will do if they win in November; they already told us. Fill out this quick survey and let the President know if he can count on you.

    Trump Admin Moves To Revoke Citizenship Of 17 Criminals

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    5
    President Donald J. Trump hosts a Rose Garden Club dinner in honor of Police Week in the White House Rose Garden, Monday, May 11, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

    The Trump administration is launching a new crackdown on naturalized citizens accused of gaming America’s immigration system, moving to strip citizenship from 17 foreign-born criminals ranging from child sex offenders to multimillion-dollar fraudsters.

    The Justice Department is expected to announce Monday that it has filed denaturalization actions against a group of naturalized citizens who allegedly lied, concealed serious crimes, or committed fraud while obtaining U.S. citizenship.

    “U.S. citizenship is a privilege, not a right for people who obtained it through deception,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said as the administration unveiled its latest effort to purge what officials describe as bad actors who abused the naturalization process.

    Among the most shocking cases is Haitian-born Jean Claude Alfred, 68, who federal officials say was sexually abusing his minor daughter while applying to become an American citizen.

    According to the Justice Department, Alfred denied committing any crimes during his citizenship application process despite allegedly abusing his daughter during that same period. He was later convicted by a Florida jury on charges including attempted sexual battery of a child in a familial relationship and lewd assault on a minor.

    The Daily Wire reported that another target is Colombian-born Fernando Cristancho, a Roman Catholic priest sentenced to 22 years in prison after pleading guilty to sexually grooming and abusing a young parishioner between the ages of 11 and 13. Federal officials allege Cristancho concealed his criminal conduct from immigration authorities while seeking naturalization.

    The administration is also seeking to denaturalize Delmas Garcia, a Cuban-born woman convicted in a massive healthcare fraud scheme that prosecutors say generated more than $36 million in false insurance claims.

    Garcia admitted operating dozens of physical therapy clinics in Florida that billed insurers for treatments that were either medically unnecessary or never provided at all.

    Also on the list is Andrea Marroquin, the daughter of a notorious Colombian drug trafficker. Prosecutors allege Marroquin concealed a fraudulent marriage and used drug money inherited from her father to carry out a series of illicit real estate transactions in Miami before becoming a U.S. citizen.

    The latest actions are part of a broader Trump administration push to dramatically expand denaturalization efforts nationwide.

    Last year, the Justice Department directed federal prosecutors to prioritize cases involving individuals who obtained citizenship through fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of serious criminal activity. The New York Times reported that USCIS was subsequently instructed to increase referrals of potential denaturalization cases, with reports indicating the agency was expected to identify between 100 and 200 new cases each month.

    The administration argues the initiative is aimed at restoring integrity to the naturalization system and ensuring citizenship is reserved for immigrants who follow the law.

    “The Trump administration is taking action to correct these egregious violations of our immigration system,” Blanche said in a previous announcement unveiling a separate round of denaturalization cases involving terrorism suspects, war criminals, sex offenders, and fraudsters.

    Critics have accused the administration of vastly expanding a legal tool that historically was used only sparingly. For decades, denaturalization cases averaged roughly a dozen filings annually, but federal officials now say hundreds of potential cases are under review.

    Under federal law, citizenship can be revoked if prosecutors prove it was obtained illegally or through willful misrepresentation of material facts during the naturalization process. The government carries a high burden of proof and must convince a federal court that citizenship was fraudulently secured.

    For the Trump administration, however, the message is straightforward: if someone lied their way into American citizenship, the government intends to take a second look.

    And for some of the nation’s worst criminals, that second look could mean losing the very citizenship they worked to obtain.

    We don’t have to guess what the Democrats will do if they win in November; they already told us. Fill out this quick survey and let the President know if he can count on you.

    Appeals Court Majority Appears Sympathetic To Challenge Against Trump’s White House Ballroom

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3

    A federal appeals court panel appeared inclined Friday to side with opponents of President Donald Trump’s proposed White House ballroom, raising new questions about whether the administration can move forward with the long-planned project without explicit authorization from Congress.

    During oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, two judges repeatedly pressed administration attorney Michael Roth on whether existing federal law gives Trump the authority to construct a new ballroom on White House grounds.

    The case stems from a lawsuit brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argues that a federal statute prohibits new buildings on federal land in Washington, D.C., unless Congress specifically approves them.

    A lower court judge previously halted above-ground construction, agreeing that Congress had not clearly authorized the project. The appeals court temporarily allowed work to continue while it considers the case.

    The administration argues that Congress has already provided sufficient authority through laws allowing alterations and improvements to the White House and through statutes governing the National Park Service’s management of federal property.

    But Judge Brad Garcia, a Biden appointee, appeared unconvinced.

    “Promote the use of the National Park Service equals express authority to erect buildings?” Garcia asked Roth during the hearing.

    “Yes, that’s our position,” Roth replied, arguing that lawmakers would have understood the law to grant that authority when it was enacted.

    Garcia later suggested Congress intentionally retained control over major changes to the White House itself.

    “It sure cares a lot about what is done to the White House, and so it’s going to retain more of a leash on the kinds of activities the president can undertake,” Garcia said.

    Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, also raised concerns about the administration’s interpretation of the law, signaling that at least two members of the three-judge panel may be sympathetic to the preservation group’s arguments.

    The lone Trump appointee on the panel, Judge Neomi Rao, focused instead on whether the National Trust has legal standing to sue. The organization’s case relies in part on a member who regularly visits the area around the White House and argues the project would alter the historic character of the site.

    “She says that she’s going to walk past the White House maybe once a month. She doesn’t really say anything specific,” Rao said, questioning whether that constitutes a concrete injury under federal law.

    The challenge comes as Trump has increasingly sought congressional support for the project after legal obstacles slowed construction efforts.

    The president originally proposed financing the ballroom through private donations, presenting the project as a way to modernize White House event space and reduce reliance on temporary structures for large state functions. Administration officials have also emphasized that portions of the work involve security upgrades that they argue should proceed regardless of the lawsuit.

    The legal battle reflects a broader debate over who ultimately controls changes to federal property. The Constitution grants Congress authority over federal lands and buildings, a point repeatedly emphasized by attorneys representing the preservation group.

    “That’s what the constitutional framework requires, which is that you do go to Congress, because Congress controls federal property,” attorney Thaddeus Heuer told the court.

    The courtroom skepticism toward the administration comes amid growing political resistance on Capitol Hill. Earlier this week, Senate Republicans stripped a proposed $1 billion funding provision for the ballroom from a larger reconciliation package. Separately, six Republican senators joined Democrats in supporting an amendment that would have explicitly barred the project from moving forward without congressional approval.

    Official RNC May Audit: Do you still support the MAGA Agenda? Update your RNC profile NOW and stand with President Trump.

    Trump Could Soon Make History on America’s Currency With Proposed $250 Bill

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    President Donald Trump may soon become the face of a brand-new $250 bill as Treasury officials reportedly push forward with plans tied to America’s upcoming 250th anniversary celebration.

    According to a report from The Washington Post, Treasury Department officials have been encouraging the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to prepare designs for a commemorative $250 note featuring Trump’s portrait — a move that would mark the first time in more than 150 years that a living American appeared on U.S. currency.

    The effort is reportedly being led by U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach and senior Treasury adviser Mike Brown, who have asked bureau staff to begin early planning and prototype development while Congress considers legislation authorizing the bill.

    One mock-up reviewed by The Washington Post featured Trump prominently centered on the note alongside Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s signature.

    The artist behind the design, British painter Iain Alexander, said Trump personally reviewed and approved revisions to the artwork.

    “He likes to call me his favorite British artist,” Alexander told The Post.

    Alexander said Trump requested patriotic additions to the design, including American flag colors and branding tied to the nation’s 250th anniversary celebration.

    Supporters say the proposal would honor Trump’s role in reshaping American politics and celebrating the country’s historic milestone. The administration is already planning a sweeping America 250 celebration, including monuments, public events, and commemorative projects nationwide.

    A Treasury spokesperson confirmed to The Post that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is “conducting appropriate planning and due diligence” related to the proposal.

    “Should this legislative mandate be signed into law, the BEP is moving proactively to produce a $250 commemorative note which will appropriately recognize the 250th Anniversary of our great nation,” the statement said.

    Critics inside the bureau reportedly raised concerns about legal hurdles and production timelines, pointing to longstanding laws limiting U.S. currency portraits to deceased individuals. But administration officials appear determined to move the idea forward if Congress authorizes the change.

    Former Bureau of Engraving and Printing Director Larry Felix told The Post that congressional approval would be required before the note could officially move into production.

    Meanwhile, another historic change is already underway.

    According to the report, the Treasury Department has approved the printing of $100 bills featuring Trump’s signature — the first time a sitting president’s signature will appear on U.S. paper currency.

    “Based on the recommendation of U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach, Secretary Bessent will recognize the historic achievements of our great country and President Trump by adding his signature to the currency,” Treasury officials said in a statement.

    The proposed $250 note arrives as the Trump administration ramps up preparations for America’s semiquincentennial celebration beginning later this year. Trump has also proposed a massive “Garden of Heroes” in Washington and other patriotic projects meant to commemorate the nation’s founding.

    While the legislation authorizing the bill has not yet passed Congress, the proposal is already generating national attention — and supporters say it would be a fitting tribute to a president they view as one of the most consequential figures in modern American history.

    Official RNC May Audit: Do you still support the MAGA Agenda? Update your RNC profile NOW and stand with President Trump.

    Thomas Massie Files 2028 Paperwork After Brutal Primary Defeat

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    By Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America - Thomas Massie, CC BY-SA 2.0,

    Rep. Thomas Massie may have lost his congressional seat, but the Kentucky Republican is already signaling he has no plans to disappear from politics anytime soon.

    Just days after suffering a bruising primary defeat to Trump-backed challenger Ed Gallrein, Massie revealed he has already filed paperwork that could keep the door open for another run in 2028.

    “I filed with FEC for the 2028 House race. This allows me to raise funds to continue my political operations supporting my position as a current office holder and as a potential candidate for federal office,” Massie wrote Monday in a post on X.

    “I haven’t made a final decision about which office to seek, if I run,” he added.

    The filing comes after Massie lost Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District Republican primary in what became one of the most closely watched and expensive House races in the country.

    President Donald Trump had aggressively targeted Massie during the campaign, repeatedly blasting the congressman and endorsing Gallrein, a retired Navy SEAL officer.

    The two men had increasingly clashed over a number of issues, including foreign policy and Massie’s push for the release of files related to deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

    Massie had sounded far less interested in a political future just weeks earlier.

    Speaking at a University of Louisville College Republicans event in April, Massie declared: “If I lose on May 19, I am not doing any more government ever.”

    Now, the tone appears to have shifted.

    “I’m keeping every option open, and there’s still an undisclosed paid social media campaign to rewrite history and diminish the platform the Epstein class gave me when they spent tens of millions of dollars to buy the seat,” Massie said in a statement to Fox News Digital.

    “I won’t be going away silently.”

    Massie also made clear that he is not ruling out a larger stage.

    During an appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday, moderator Kristen Welker asked whether he was considering a 2028 presidential run.

    “I will not rule out anything. And right now I’m not gonna rule in anything,” Massie said.

    “I think I will stay engaged in some way or shape. Maybe it’s from the outside. I’ve been exposing what’s going on Washington D.C. for years,” he added.

    The comments come after supporters unexpectedly began chanting “2028” and “President!” during Massie’s concession speech last week, fueling speculation that some backers see the congressman as more than just a defeated House member.

    Whether that turns into a White House bid, another congressional run, or something else entirely remains unclear.

    But one thing appears increasingly certain: Massie may have lost his seat — but he is making it clear he does not view himself as finished.

    Vivek Ramaswamy is ready to make real, impactful change but he can’t do it alone. Help Vivek fight Big Government and restore common sense leadership. Chip in $1 and become part of Ohio’s political revolution!
    123...16Page 1 of 16
    © Great America News Desk 2022