Government

Home Government

Taxpayers May Be Forced To Cover Legal Fees For NY AG Letitia James Amid Fraud Probe

2
Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

New York taxpayers could soon find themselves footing the legal bill for Attorney General Letitia James as she prepares to defend herself against a federal investigation into alleged mortgage and real estate fraud. Buried in New York’s newly approved operations budget is language that opens a $10 million fund to reimburse state officials — including James — for “reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses” tied to investigations launched by the federal government after January 1, 2025.

Though the budget provision does not mention James by name, sources familiar with the matter confirmed to The New York Post that the fund was included with her case in mind. The fund could also apply to other state officials targeted by a Trump administration-led Department of Justice as it reopens investigations into political and institutional corruption.

The controversy stems from a criminal referral issued last month by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), whose director, William Pulte, accused James of falsifying mortgage documents and misrepresenting her residency status. According to the referral sent to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, James claimed a Virginia home — allegedly purchased on behalf of her niece — as her primary residence, a move that could constitute mortgage fraud.

James, who gained national prominence for her high-profile civil fraud case against Donald Trump, has come under scrutiny for what critics now call a double standard. Once the face of the “no one is above the law” mantra, she now finds herself leaning on state funds and a private legal defense to fight the allegations. A spokesperson for her office called the probe “political retribution” and vowed to fight what they characterized as a “revenge tour” orchestrated by Trump.

But Republicans are not buying the victim narrative.

“This is what corruption looks like in plain sight: political insiders rigging the system to protect their own, while hardworking families get shortchanged,” said New York GOP Chair Ed Cox. “Tish James used her office to wage partisan lawfare against her political opponents, and now New Yorkers are footing the bill for the consequences.”

Critics also slammed what they describe as a legal “bailout” hidden in plain sight. The language in the budget states that any state employee facing a federal investigation related to their duties may seek reimbursement — a clause that could be used broadly and, according to opponents, easily abused.

The legal support fund is likely to inflame already tense debates over partisanship, misuse of public resources, and institutional trust. With New York’s top law enforcement officer now potentially under federal investigation, questions will continue to mount over the ethical boundaries between public office and political warfare — and who ends up paying the price.

Congress Votes To Make Trump Gulf Of America Name Change Permanent

0
By Executive Office of the President of the United States - https://x.com/POTUS/status/1888706337699238047/photo/1, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159501092

The House of Representatives voted to make President Donald Trump’s name change for the Gulf of America permanent on Friday morning. 

The legislation was led by staunch Trump ally, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

“This is such an important thing to do for the American people. The American people deserve pride in their country, and they deserve pride in the waters that we own, that we protect with our military and our Coast Guard and all of the businesses that prosper along these waters,” Greene said during debate on the bill.

Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, panned the legislation as a waste of time.

“Republicans think this juvenile legislation is the best use of this House’s time. This is the only work we’re doing today, folks,” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said in his rebuttal to Greene.

Earlier this week, Fox News Digital was told that several GOP lawmakers privately expressed frustration at what they saw as a largely symbolic bill taking up their time instead of more meaningful legislation to move Trump’s agenda along.

“I’ve heard criticisms from all corners of the conference. Conservatives to pragmatic ones,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told Fox News Digital on Tuesday. “It seems sophomoric. The United States is bigger and better than this.”

One conservative GOP lawmaker vented to Fox News Digital, “125 other [executive orders], this is the one we pick.”

Greene hit back at the detractors, however, in response to Fox News Digital’s report.

“Some of my Republican colleagues don’t want to vote for my Gulf of America Act, which is one of President Trump’s favorite executive orders. They say they would rather vote on ‘more serious EOs.’ Boys are you ready to vote to criminalize sex changes on kids?? Because I have that bill on that EO too,” she wrote on X.

Inside DOGE: Elon Musk’s Bold Move To Rewiring Federal Thinking

Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

In the history of American bureaucracy, few ideas have carried the sting of satire and the force of reform as powerfully as Steve Davis’s $1 credit card limit. It is a solution so blunt, so absurd on its face, that only a government so accustomed to inertia could have missed it for decades. And yet, here it is, at the center of a sprawling audit by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, that has, in just seven weeks, eliminated or disabled 470,000 federal charge cards across thirty agencies. The origin of this initiative reveals more than cleverness or thrift. It reflects a new attitude, one that insists the machinery of government need not be calcified. The federal workforce, long derided as passive and obstructionist, is now being challenged to solve problems, not explain why they cannot be solved. This, more than any tally of dollars saved, may be DOGE’s greatest achievement.

When Elon Musk assumed control of DOGE under President Trump’s second administration, he brought with him an instinct for disruption. But disruption, as many reformers have learned, is often easier said than done. Take federal credit cards. There were, as of early 2025, roughly 4.6 million active accounts across the federal government, while the civilian workforce comprised fewer than 3 million employees. Even the most charitable reading suggests gross redundancy. More cynical observers see potential for abuse. DOGE asked the obvious question: why so many cards? The initial impulse was to cancel them outright. But as is often the case in government, legality is not aligned with simplicity.

Enter Steve Davis. Known for his austere management style and history with Musk-led enterprises, Davis encountered legal counsel who informed him that mass cancellation would breach existing contracts, violate administrative rules, and risk judicial entanglement. Most would stop there. But Davis, adhering to Musk’s ethos of first-principles thinking, chose another route. If the cards could not be canceled, could they be rendered functionally useless? Yes. Set their limits to $1.

This workaround achieved in days what years of audits and Inspector General warnings had not. The cards remained technically active, sidestepping the legal landmines of cancellation, but were practically neutered. The act was swift, surgical, and reversible. It allowed agencies to petition for exemptions in cases of genuine operational need, but forced every cardholder and department head to justify the existence of each card. Waste thrives in opacity. The $1 cap turned on the lights.

Naturally, the immediate reaction inside many agencies was panic. At the National Park Service, staff could not process trash removal contracts. At the FDA, scientific research paused as laboratories found themselves unable to order reagents. At the Department of Defense, travel for civilian personnel ground to a halt. Critics likened it to a shutdown, albeit without furloughs. Others, more charitable, described it as a stress test. And indeed, that is precisely what it was: a large-scale audit conducted not by paper trails and desk reviews, but by rendering all purchases impossible and observing who protested, why, and with what justification.

This approach reflects a deeper philosophical question. What is government for? Is it a perpetuator of routine, or a servant of necessity? The DOGE initiative, in its credit card audit, insisted that nothing in government spending ought to be assumed sacred or automatic. Every purchase, every expense, must be rooted in mission-critical need. And for that to happen, a culture shift must occur, not merely in policy, but in mindset. The federal worker must no longer be an apologist for the status quo, but an agent of reform.

Remarkably, this message has found traction. Inside the agencies affected by the freeze, DOGE has reported a surge in what one official described as “constructive dissent.” Civil servants who once reflexively recited reasons for inaction are now offering alternative mechanisms, revised workflows, and digital solutions. One employee at the Department of Agriculture proposed consolidating regional office supply chains after realizing that over a dozen separate cardholders were purchasing duplicative items within the same week. A NOAA field team discovered it could pool resources for bulk procurement, saving money and reducing redundancy. These are not acts of whistleblowing or radical restructuring. They are small, localized acts of efficiency, and they matter.

Critics argue that these are marginal gains and that the real drivers of federal bloat lie elsewhere: entitlement spending, defense procurement, or healthcare subsidies. And they are not wrong. But they miss the point. DOGE’s $1 limit was not about accounting minutiae, it was about psychology. In a system where inertia reigns, a symbolic shock is often the necessary prelude to substantive reform. The act of asking why, why this card, why this purchase, why this employee, forces a reappraisal that scales. Culture, not just cost, was the target.

There is a danger here, of course. Symbolism can become performance, and austerity can become vanity. If agencies are deprived of necessary tools for the sake of headlines, then reform becomes sabotage. This is why the $1 policy included an appeals process, a mechanism for restoring functionality where needed. In a philosophical sense, this is the principle of proportionality applied to public finance: restrictions should be commensurate with the likelihood of abuse, and reversible upon demonstration of legitimate need.

DOGE’s broader audit, still underway, has now expanded to cover nearly thirty agencies. It is not simply cutting cards. It is classifying them, comparing issuance practices, flagging statistical anomalies, and building a federal dashboard of real-time usage. This is not glamorous work. There are no ribbon-cuttings, no legacy-defining achievements. But it is the marrow of good governance. As Aristotle noted, excellence is not an act, but a habit. The DOGE team has adopted a habit of scrutiny. And that habit, when instilled in the civil service, is a kind of virtue.

Here we arrive at the most profound implication. What if the federal workforce is not inherently wasteful or cynical, but simply trapped in a system that rewards compliance over creativity? What if, when given both the mandate and the moral permission to think, civil servants become problem solvers? The $1 limit policy is, in this light, less a budgetary tool than a pedagogical one. It teaches. It asks employees to imagine how their department might function if every dollar mattered, and to act accordingly.

In a bureaucratic culture where the phrase “we can’t do that” serves as both shield and apology, DOGE has introduced a new mantra: try. Try to find the workaround. Try to reimagine procurement. Try to do more with less. This shift may not register on a spreadsheet. It may not win an election. But it rehumanizes the federal workforce. It treats them not as drones executing policy, but as intelligent actors capable of judgment, reform, and even invention.

The future of DOGE will no doubt face resistance. Unions, entrenched bureaucrats, and political opponents will argue it oversteps or misunderstands the delicate machinery of governance. Some of that criticism will be valid. But what cannot be denied is that DOGE has already achieved something rare: it has made federal workers think differently. It has shown that even the most byzantine of systems contains levers for change—if one is willing to pull them.

The $1 card limit is not a policy; it is a parable. It tells us that in the face of complexity, simplicity is a virtue. That in the face of inertia, audacity has a place. And that in the face of sprawling bureaucracies, sometimes the best way to fix the machine is to unplug it and see who calls to complain. That is when the real work begins.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: Federal Judge Blocks Hugely Popular Trump-Backed Reform

Hegseth’s Inner Circle Crumbles — Top Aide Out In Pentagon Shakeup

By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Pete Hegseth, CC BY-SA 2.0

Joe Kasper, former chief of staff to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, likely walked out of the Pentagon as a Department of Defense (DOD) employee for the last time Thursday as controversy over leaked classified information spiraled out of control. His exit follows bombshell revelations that Hegseth shared sensitive military plans — including airstrike details in Yemen — with unauthorized parties via Signal, an encrypted messaging app.

The scandal, now called “Signalgate,” has set off a series of investigations and toppled senior aides, including Deputy Chief of Staff Darin Selnick and Senior Advisor Dan Caldwell. Former Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot called it a “full-blown meltdown,” and warned that Hegseth’s days could be numbered.

Even as the chaos grows, President Trump is standing by Hegseth — at least publicly. But the fallout is exposing serious cracks in the Pentagon’s leadership and raising alarms about operational security.

Kasper’s abrupt departure marks another blow during a brutal period of scrutiny. Although Hegseth told the hosts of “Fox & Friends” that his chief adviser would move to “a slightly different role” within the DOD, Kasper is officially gone — eyeing a return to government relations and consulting.

A senior official confirmed the news on Friday, according to a report by The Guardian:

“Secretary Hegseth is thankful for [Kasper’s] continued leadership and work to advance the America First agenda,” the official said in a statement, referring to Donald Trump’s protectionist policy push.

The quick exit comes after Kasper was implicated as the orchestrator of a power grab that led to the dismissal of three senior Pentagon officials – Dan Caldwell, Darin Selnick and Colin Carroll – allegedly as part of a leak investigation.

The administration’s first hundred days created a troubled tenure for Kasper, with anonymous sources claiming he was frequently late to meetings, failed to follow through on critical tasks, and displayed inappropriate behavior, including berating officials and making crude comments allegedly about his bowel movements during high-level meetings.

“He lacked the focus and organizational skills needed to get things done,” one anonymous insider told Politico.

Other reports surfaced that the strip club aficionado shared inappropriate personal stories about exotic dancers during classified meetings — one of several reasons he became a liability. He’s now the fifth top aide to leave Hegseth’s circle in just a week.

Meanwhile, the broader Pentagon leadership is under fire for security breaches, including Hegseth’s use of an unsecured “dirty” internet line for Signal communications — a move that may have exposed critical data to foreign surveillance, according to NSA warnings.

READ NEXT: Trump’s Deportation Squad Takes Down Judge Linked To Gruesome Pics

Trump’s Voter Citizenship Requirement Blocked By Federal Judge

In a controversial decision that critics say undermines basic electoral integrity, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking the Trump administration from implementing key provisions of its election reform order — including a requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.

The Trump administration’s order, signed in March, sought to address the widespread public concern over election security by aligning U.S. registration standards with those used by many developed nations — where proof of citizenship is a basic requirement to cast a vote. Yet, in her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly sided with Democratic operatives and partisan groups, granting their request to halt implementation of what should be a commonsense safeguard.

It’s already a felony for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. So why oppose a mechanism to verify that voters are, in fact, eligible citizens? The administration’s proposed policy simply sought to enforce existing law, not change it. But for activists and partisan lawyers, that’s apparently too much.

Critics of the ruling argue that it demonstrates a disturbing disconnect between legal theory and electoral reality. While the plaintiffs claimed the executive order infringes on the “Elections Clause” of the Constitution — which delegates much of the authority over elections to the states — the Trump order targeted the federal voter registration form, which is a product of federal law and administered by a federal agency.

Among the more absurd arguments presented during the case was the suggestion that requiring proof of citizenship would complicate voter registration drives at grocery stores and public venues. In other words, ensuring that only citizens vote is too inconvenient for activists looking to register voters en masse.

But this framing reveals the central issue: voter registration is being treated like a political campaign tactic, not a civic responsibility. If accuracy and integrity are seen as barriers to convenience, something is deeply wrong with the system.

If the courts won’t even allow the federal form to be updated to reflect current law, critics argue, how can Americans have confidence that elections are fair and secure?

Ironically, while liberal groups celebrate the decision as a “victory for voters,” many Americans see it as a victory for loopholes and ambiguity. The same people who insist elections are sacred and democracy is under threat are now openly opposing the most basic eligibility checks used around the world.

Meanwhile, Trump’s other proposed reforms — including tighter mail ballot deadlines and review of voter rolls against immigration databases — were allowed to stand. But with the citizenship requirement blocked, many worry that the core vulnerability in the system remains unaddressed.

When noncitizens can easily register to vote — intentionally or accidentally — and the federal government is barred from checking, who exactly benefits?

This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It is republished with permission.

READ NEXT: President Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring Proof Of Citizenship To Vote In Federal Elections

Former NATO Commander Goes On CNN To Mock Trump’s Plea To Putin

CNN Headquarters via Wikimedia Commons

Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, took a swipe at President Donald Trump’s Truth Social message to Vladimir Putin, calling the public plea unlikely to influence Russian military behavior.

Clark’s comments came during a Thursday appearance on CNN’s “Situation Room,” shortly after Trump had posted:

“I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Let’s get the Peace Deal DONE!”

“Do you think a post from President Trump on social media will actually wind up stopping Putin from launching more attacks on civilians, like in Kyiv, for example, where civilian men, women and children were just killed in big numbers?” asked CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Clark replied bluntly: “Well, I think it would be very surprising if President Trump’s tweet would have any real impact on President Putin.”

The retired Army officer argued that Putin sees a strategic opening, particularly as the U.S. appears to be retreating from some of its longstanding commitments in Europe.

Mediaite further reports:

“So this is a moment for Putin, really. It’s what he’s been waiting for,” he continued. “This gives him a clear field to bring pressure to bear against Ukrainian population like this missile strike, and also to go to his allies, China, North Korea, and Iran, and say, ‘Give me more, give me more. This is the moment we can go.”

“We know there are exercises being prepared for this summer in Belarus. Rumors of brigades being ready to attack from Belarus into Kaliningrad to open that gate. This is a really perilous time for Europe. And it’s the opposite time to be pulling back,” he said.

“What President Trump should be saying is, ‘Since you did this, I’m reinforcing U.S. Military assistance to Kyiv, and you can forget about it. We’re going to stay with it until you realize you’re not going to win militarily,’” Clark advised Trump. That’s what it’s going to take to bring peace to Ukraine.”

Trump had pledged to end the Russian invasion of Ukraine within 24 hours of being elected, but he and his diplomatic team have thus far found it difficult to broker a peace agreement with Russia and Ukraine, going so far as to suggest they will give up any efforts recently.

READ NEXT: Trump Pushes To Revive Sweeping Ban – Supreme Court Now Involved

Trump’s Patience With Zelensky Evaporates As White House Issues Dire Warning

By President Of Ukraine - https://www.flickr.com/photos/165930373@N06/54169325552/, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=156221279

President Trump’s growing frustration with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came to a head on Wednesday. At the center of the tension: a statement from Zelensky demanding full Russian withdrawal — including from Crimea — before even sitting down for peace talks.

While the Ukrainian leader remains steadfast in his refusal to negotiate without a complete rollback of Russian control, critics argue that this kind of rigid posture may be stalling real progress and prolonging the war’s human cost.

The Trump team has been exploring more pragmatic solutions to break the deadlock — one of which includes floating the idea of formally recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. It’s a bold play meant to strip away one of the biggest barriers to getting both sides to the table.

As the New York Post explains, Trump’s dire warning to the Ukrainian president included a particularly ominous comment: settle for a negotiated peace or risk “losing the entire country.”

Trump, 78, was responding to Zelensky telling reporters Tuesday that “Ukraine will not legally recognize the [Russian] occupation of Crimea” — a key part of a US-proposed peace plan under discussion in London Wednesday, and a condition that has long been a red line for Kyiv.

“This statement is very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago under the auspices of President Barack Hussein Obama, and is not even a point of discussion,” the president seethed on Truth Social. 

“Nobody is asking Zelenskyy to recognize Crimea as Russian Territory but, if he wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?”

Trump a decade ago criticized Obama for not intervening when Russia annexed Crimea. Kyiv has been working since 2014 to get its territory back and expel Russians from eastern Ukraine.

In a bid to end the grinding, trench-style war in Ukraine, the Trump administration is preparing to upend more than eight decades of U.S. foreign policy.

“There’s a doctrine out there called the Welles Declaration, that goes back to 1940, that says the United States will not acknowledge the occupation of a foreign land by another nation,” a senior administration official told the Post. “That’s on the table.”

The Welles Doctrine, first invoked to condemn the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, has long guided America’s refusal to recognize territorial seizures. Reversing or softening that position would mark a historic shift — one aimed at pressuring Ukraine and Russia toward a negotiated ceasefire.

The move, while politically explosive, is rooted in realpolitik. Crimea has been effectively under Russian control since 2014, and there’s an argument to be made that clinging to pre-2014 maps may be standing in the way of saving lives today.

Predictably, the proposal sparked outrage in Kyiv. For Ukrainians, Crimea isn’t just land — it’s a Maryland size chunk of heritage, identity and pride.

But an important question remains: At what point does principled resistance become strategic blindness?

READ NEXT: Fox News Star UNLOADS On Democrat Rep In Explosive Clash [WATCH]

Trump Backs Off Powell Firing Talk As Markets Rally

The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump made clear he has “no intention” of dismissing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, despite recent public criticisms that had unsettled financial markets. Tuesday’s clarification comes after Trump had labeled Powell a “major loser” and suggested his “termination cannot come fast enough.”

The president’s assurance appeared to calm investor fears about the central bank’s independence, triggering a significant market rebound Tuesday that extended into Wednesday morning.

The S&P 500 rose by 3%, and the Nasdaq increased by 3.7%, reflecting investor relief over the reduced likelihood of political interference with the Federal Reserve. European markets also responded positively, with the Stoxx Europe 600 up 1.9% and Germany’s DAX gaining 2.8%.

Despite the president’s recent criticisms, including calls for more aggressive interest rate cuts, Trump emphasized that he never intended to remove Powell from his position. He expressed a desire for the Fed to act more decisively in lowering interest rates but acknowledged Powell’s role would continue until his term concludes in May 2026.

“I would like to see him be a little more active in terms of his idea to lower interest rates…but, no, I have no intention to fire him,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal:

U.S. stock futures and the dollar rallied following Trump’s remarks. Gold futures dropped, pulling back from record highs.

Trump’s softer tone on Powell came after he lashed out at the Fed chair, writing on social media last week, “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!”

But on Tuesday, Trump played down recent comments by Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, that the administration was studying whether the president could fire Powell.

“This is a perfect time to lower interest rates. If he doesn’t, is it the end? No. It’s not,” Trump said.

Trump also addressed trade policy, signaling that tariffs on Chinese goods — currently set at 145% — could be “substantially” reduced, though not fully eliminated. The hint at a possible easing of trade tensions, combined with his reaffirmation of the Fed’s independence, fueled the global market rebound. (RELATED: Trump Softens Tariff Stance On China)

While the immediate market reaction has been positive, analysts warn that ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve — along with the prospect of slow-moving trade negotiations between the world’s two largest economies — could continue to weigh on financial markets in the weeks and months ahead.

READ NEXT: Jury Issues Decisive Verdict In Onetime Republican Star’s Years-Long Legal Battle

White House Denies Reports It’s Seeking New Defense Secretary

2

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt didn’t mince words Monday, firing back at an NPR report claiming the administration is quietly searching for a new secretary of defense.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Leavitt dismissed the story as “fake news” and reaffirmed that President Trump has full confidence in Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — echoing remarks she made earlier during an appearance on Fox News.

At the center of the controversy are revelations that Hegseth shared sensitive details about a planned U.S. airstrike in Yemen through a private Signal chat. According to a New York Times report published Sunday — later corroborated by The Wall Street Journal — the previously unreported March 15 exchange included Hegseth’s wife, brother and personal attorney.

Hegseth allegedly disclosed the timing of F/A-18 Hornet aircraft departures for an operation targeting Houthi terrorists. The Signal group, titled Defense | Team Huddle, was reportedly used for both personal and professional updates — but in this instance, it included highly sensitive operational information.

The incident follows a previous misstep involving another Signal chat, where a conversation between top administration officials — including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance — was accidentally shared with a prominent liberal journalist from The Atlantic.

The Pentagon inspector general’s office has launched an inquiry to assess whether the use of a platform like Signal violated protocols for handling certain information.

Despite the growing pressure, the administration has shown no public sign of backing away from Hegseth. In addition to Leavitt’s denial of the NPR story, Trump himself has brushed off concerns over Hegseth’s Signal chats.

The White House may be banking on a unified public front to contain the fallout.

READ NEXT: Trump Cabinet Member Robbed

Federal Judge Finds Probable Cause To Hold Trump In Contempt

A federal judge said Wednesday that he has found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt for failing to return two planes deporting migrants to El Salvador last month.

In the 48-page opinion, Judge Boasberg said the court had ultimately determined that the Trump administration’s actions on the March 15 deportation flights, which took place after he issued a bench ruling ordering their immediate return to U.S. soil, demonstrate a “willful disregard” for the court that is sufficient for the government to be found in criminal contempt.”

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Justice Department in a filing Wednesday to answer additional questions by April 23 if they want to “purge” the contempt.

Fox News reports:

That would involve identifying the individuals responsible for what he described as “contumacious conduct,” and by “determining whose ‘specific act or omission’ caused the noncompliance,” Boasberg said. 

The Justice Department could then request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government and, should they decline to prosecute the matter, could “appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.”

“The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions,” the judge continued. “None of their responses has been satisfactory…”

“As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg said Wednesday.

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