Random

    Government

    Home Government

    Trump Ties FEMA Funding To New Election Security Rules

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    5
    DHSgov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    The Trump administration announced Friday that states will have to adopt a series of federal election security measures to receive certain Federal Emergency Management Agency grant funding, marking the latest effort to influence how states administer elections ahead of the 2026 midterms.

    The Department of Homeland Security said recipients of FEMA-administered homeland security grants will be required to implement what it called “common-sense election security measures” before receiving funding.

    “These new requirements for homeland security grant recipients will preserve election integrity and ensure that Americans can trust the results,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement.

    Funding tied to election changes

    According to FEMA grant guidance, up to 20% of funding under the State Homeland Security Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative may be withheld until states certify compliance with the administration’s election security requirements. The affected grant programs distribute roughly $1 billion annually for terrorism prevention, cybersecurity, emergency preparedness, and critical infrastructure protection.

    Among the requirements are:

    • Verification of the citizenship of registered voters and election workers.
    • Documentation of election audits.
    • Plans to transition jurisdictions that rely on barcode- or QR code-based ballot tabulation toward hand-marked paper ballots.

    The administration has argued that election infrastructure is part of the nation’s critical security framework and that stronger safeguards are necessary to bolster public confidence in election results.

    States question federal authority

    Election administration has historically been handled by states, and several state officials and election law experts have questioned whether the executive branch has the legal authority to condition homeland security grants on changes to state voting procedures.

    The announcement follows a series of recent actions by the administration aimed at reshaping election administration, including Justice Department letters requesting voter registration records from all 50 states and President Donald Trump’s removal of the remaining commissioners of the bipartisan U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

    Legal challenges expected

    The new FEMA conditions are expected to face legal scrutiny.

    Courts have already blocked portions of previous Trump administration efforts to impose nationwide election rules through executive action, with judges finding that the Constitution grants states broad authority over the administration of elections absent congressional action.

    Whether the administration can ultimately enforce the new grant conditions may depend on future court rulings. In the meantime, states seeking the affected homeland security funding will have to decide whether to comply with the new requirements or challenge them in court.

    READ NEXT: Felon Opens Fire, Is Shot Back Twice By Intended Victim

    Powerless families don’t stand a chance against government corruption without supporters like you. Read her story today — then join the fight and protect this mother.

    Trump Make Unprecedented Move And Attend SCOTUS Hearing On Birthright Citizenship

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

    President Donald Trump is set to make an unprecedented appearance at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, attending oral arguments in a case that could redefine birthright citizenship in America.

    The White House confirmed the visit as justices hear the administration’s appeal after lower courts blocked Trump’s executive order restricting automatic citizenship. A decision is expected by early summer.

    If he follows through, Trump would become the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court arguments.

    The order — signed on the first day of his second term — seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas, directly challenging long-standing interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

    “I’m going,” Trump told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office, adding: “I think so, I do believe.”

    For the administration, the case is central to Trump’s hardline immigration agenda — a defining feature of his second term. Opponents call the effort unconstitutional and unprecedented, warning it could affect roughly 150,000 children born in the U.S. each year to non-citizens.

    A ruling in Trump’s favor would mark a seismic shift in immigration policy, upending decades of legal precedent and forcing immediate action from Congress and federal agencies to determine the status of affected children.

    The Constitutional Fight

    At the center of the case is the 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”

    Trump argues that the clause has been misinterpreted.

    His Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” would deny citizenship to children born after Feb. 19, 2025, if their parents are undocumented or in the U.S. on temporary visas. It also bars federal agencies from recognizing those children as citizens.

    “The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” the order states. “But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

    In its appeal, the Justice Department called lower court rulings against the order a “mistaken view” with “destructive consequences.”

    “The lower courts’ decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” said Solicitor General John Sauer, who will argue the case. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

    The Opposition

    A coalition of states, immigrant rights groups, and private plaintiffs — including pregnant women — is challenging the order.

    They argue it contradicts both the Constitution and longstanding Supreme Court precedent, including an 1898 ruling affirming citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.

    “The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress,” said ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”

    Critics warn the policy could create chaos, forcing families to prove citizenship status at birth and potentially leaving some children stateless.

    “Under the executive order, that child is born a noncitizen,” said UVA law professor Amanda Frost, “denied all the benefits and privileges of citizenship and theoretically deportable on day one of their life.”

    What the Court Will Weigh

    The legal battle hinges on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    The administration argues it allows the government to exclude children of undocumented or temporary-status parents. Opponents say precedent limits that exception to narrow cases like children of foreign diplomats.

    During earlier arguments, several justices appeared skeptical.

    The government’s position “makes no sense whatsoever,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, warning it could leave some children “stateless.”

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised practical concerns: “What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?”

    “I don’t think they do anything different,” Sauer responded.

    “How are they going to know that?” Kavanaugh pressed.

    Why It Matters

    The stakes are enormous.

    A Pew survey found 94% of Americans support citizenship for children born in the U.S. to immigrants legally in the country. Meanwhile, critics of current policy point to abuses like “birth tourism,” where foreign nationals travel to the U.S. specifically to secure citizenship for their children.

    “This is the exploitation of America’s birthright citizenship policy,” said Peter Schweizer. “Birth tourism is essentially an industry…”

    Now, the Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold more than a century of precedent — or redefine what it means to be born an American.

    And for the first time, the president himself may be in the room when that decision begins.

    Police Officer Chance Bretches was awarded a Lifesaving Medal with Valor for rescuing someone from a burning vehicle…But now radicals are trying to ruin his life just for doing his job. Officer Bretches and his family need your help.[Support Police Officers HERE]

    Republicans Question Trump Over $1.8B DOJ ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Fund

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    President Trump’s newly created “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is already triggering backlash on Capitol Hill, including from some Republicans, as critics question whether the unprecedented program could become a vehicle for rewarding political allies under the banner of correcting alleged government abuses.

    The Department of Justice announced Monday that it would establish a $1.776 billion compensation fund designed to provide relief for individuals who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the federal government under the Biden administration.

    Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the fund is intended to create a formal process for people who believe they were victims of government “weaponization” or “lawfare.”

    “The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Blanche said in a DOJ statement. “As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

    According to the DOJ, the fund will be authorized to issue both formal apologies and financial compensation to approved claimants. The department stated that there is “no partisan requirement” to file claims, and any unspent funds will eventually return to the federal government.

    The five-member commission overseeing the fund will be appointed by the DOJ, with one member selected in consultation with congressional leadership. President Trump will also retain the authority to remove members and appoint replacements through the attorney general.

    Exactly who qualifies for compensation remains unclear.

    The administration has not outlined specific eligibility standards, nor has it identified who may ultimately benefit from the program. Questions have also surfaced regarding whether individuals charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot — including those later pardoned or whose sentences were commuted by Trump — could receive compensation.

    Asked Monday whether Jan. 6 defendants could potentially benefit, Trump deferred to the commission.

    “I didn’t do this deal,” Trump told reporters. “It was told to me yesterday.”

    The new program emerged from a settlement involving Trump’s now-withdrawn $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. Trump sued the agency after a contractor leaked portions of his tax records to media outlets.

    As part of the agreement, Trump, his family members and the Trump Organization reportedly will receive no direct monetary damages and instead accepted a formal apology while withdrawing multiple legal claims, including administrative complaints tied to the Mar-a-Lago investigation and allegations surrounding the Russia investigation.

    The DOJ defended the structure of the fund by pointing to the Obama-era Keepseagle v. Vilsack settlement, “where the Obama administration created a $760 million fund to redress various claims alleging racism against the federal government over a period of decades.”

    But critics argue the comparison does not hold up.

    Joseph Sellers, an attorney involved in the Keepseagle case, told CNN the situations are fundamentally different.

    “That really is the critical issue,” Sellers said. “You have to serve the same community whose interests were at stake in the litigation that was brought.”

    The administration’s rollout has also generated rare public resistance from Republicans.

    According to Mediaite, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) criticized the proposal on Tuesday.

    “Yeah, not a big fan,” Thune told reporters. “I’m not sure exactly how they intend to use it. … But yeah, I don’t see a purpose for it.”

    Mediaite also reported that Sen. John Kennedy (R- La.) expressed skepticism while saying he remained open to the concept.

    “I need to know where the money is going to come from. I need to know who would qualify. I need to know the definition of weaponization. I need to know who’s been weaponized against?” Kennedy said Monday.

    Democrats have gone considerably further in their criticism.

    A group of 93 House Democrats filed an amicus brief seeking to block the settlement, arguing that it violates constitutional requirements and improperly redirects taxpayer money.

    Separately, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) condemned the fund as “a racket” intended to channel taxpayer dollars toward Trump allies.

    The issue also surfaced during a Senate Appropriations hearing Tuesday, where Sen. Chris Coons (D-Ct.) pressed Blanche over the unusual nature of the settlement arrangement.

    Coons noted that no previous president had sued his own administration and then settled the case while serving in office.

    Blanche pushed back on suggestions that Trump directed the process and rejected comparisons between the underlying litigation and the Keepseagle case, arguing that only the commission structure itself was similar.

    Still, when Coons asked whether Trump campaign donors could ultimately receive payments from the fund, Blanche declined to provide assurances.

    “I am not committing to anything beyond the settlement agreement itself,” Blanche said. “They are not excluded from seeking compensation if they are recognized.”

    With the fund’s eligibility standards still undefined and its commission not yet assembled, many of the biggest questions surrounding who receives compensation — and whether political allies of the president could benefit — remain unanswered.

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

    Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Special Counsel’s Access To Trump Twitter Data

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    4
    Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge by social platform X, formerly known as Twitter, to court rulings that forced the platform to turn over data on former President Trump’s account to special counsel Jack Smith. 

    Early last year, Smith obtained a secret warrant for Trump’s account on X, where Trump posted constantly during his White House term, as part of prosecutors’ federal election interference investigation.

    X was prohibited from informing the former president about the warrant. It only became public last summer, after Trump was charged with four felonies in the case. He pleaded not guilty. 

    Kamala’s Plan to Destroy America Unveiled – Only Trump Can Stop Her! Take a Stand TODAY!

    The company challenged the order, arguing the records were potentially covered by executive privilege and not being able to tell Trump violated the First Amendment. Court filings show X at one point was fined $350,000 for not timely turning over Trump’s data.

    X brought its fight to the Supreme Court, hoping to prevent the process from happening again, insisting most similar challenges never reach the high court and the case was a “rare opportunity” to review the issue. 

    “If the Court does not grant this petition, it could be decades (if ever) before it gets another clean vehicle to resolve the important and recurring questions presented,” X wrote in its petition. 

    The Supreme Court declined to take up X’s appeal in a brief, unsigned order.

    “If review of the underlying legal issues were ever warranted, the Court should await a live case in which the issues are concretely presented,” prosecutors wrote in court filings. 

    White House Releases Memos Detailing Secret FBI Investigation Into Trump

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1

    The FBI’s Russia investigation did not stop at Trump campaign aides.

    One week after President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017, bureau officials opened a counterintelligence investigation aimed directly at Trump, according to newly declassified memos released by the White House and reported by Fox News.

    The closely guarded probe carried an unusual codename: “Oxferd Comma”—with “Oxford” apparently misspelled for reasons that remain unclear.

    But the questions behind the name were anything but trivial.

    In a May 16, 2017, opening memo, investigators said they sought to determine whether Trump was “directed by, controlled by, and/or coordinated activities with, the Russian Federation in a manner constituting a threat to the national security of the United States and/or a violation of federal criminal statutes,” according to Fox News.

    The FBI also widened its focus to possible obstruction. The memo’s wording, as released, stated: “In addition, this investigation will also seek to determine whether President Trump and others yet to be named obstructed and/or conspiracy to obstruct any associated FBI investigation.”

    In other words, Comey’s firing triggered an extraordinary inquiry into whether the sitting president was acting in concert with a hostile foreign power—and whether he or others had tried to derail the bureau’s work.

    From Comey’s Firing to a Probe of the President

    Comey, appointed by President Barack Obama, led the FBI from 2013 until Trump dismissed him in 2017.

    During that tenure, Comey oversaw two investigations that became defining controversies of the 2016 election. The FBI examined Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, and Comey notified Congress shortly before Election Day that agents had found emails that “appear to be pertinent” to that case.

    Comey also oversaw the launch of “Crossfire Hurricane,” the FBI investigation opened in July 2016 after the bureau received information that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had suggested Russia possessed damaging material about Clinton.

    When Trump fired Comey, the administration initially pointed to the FBI director’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. The dismissal, however, rapidly intensified scrutiny of the president and the Russia inquiry.

    On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel. Mueller took over the existing Russia investigation and expanded the federal inquiry.

    Mueller’s final report, released in 2019, found that Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 election through a social media influence operation and the hacking and release of Democratic emails. The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.

    The report also examined potential obstruction but did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment on whether Trump committed a crime.

    According to the newly released memos, the “Oxferd Comma” investigation was closed on April 9, 2019, as Mueller’s work neared completion.

    Durham’s Review Reignited Questions About the FBI

    The bureau’s handling of the Trump-Russia investigation later came under examination by special counsel John Durham, whom Attorney General William Barr appointed to review the origins of Crossfire Hurricane.

    Durham’s 2023 report concluded that the FBI lacked sufficient factual grounds to open the full investigation and departed from its usual standards. His findings fueled renewed allegations that political bias shaped the bureau’s decisions.

    Separately declassified material from an annex to Durham’s report also showed officials scrutinized intelligence alleging that Clinton allies planned to link Trump to Russian President Vladimir Putin in order to shift attention from Clinton’s email controversy.

    “Raising the theme of ‘Putin’s support for Trump’ to the level of the Olympics scandal would divert the constituents’ attention from the investigation of Clinton’s compromised electronic correspondence,” the annex reads, according to Fox News.

    The annex also included a 2016 message attributed to Leonard Benardo, an official with the Open Society Foundations network who had done business in Moscow in the 1980s.

    “Julie says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump. Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later the FBI will put more oil into the fire,” Benardo wrote.

    The appendix said “Julie” appeared to refer to Clinton foreign policy adviser Julianne Smith.

    The newly disclosed “Oxferd Comma” memos add another striking chapter to the fight over the Russia investigation. They show that, after Comey’s firing, the FBI was not merely asking whether people around Trump had improper Russian ties. It was formally investigating whether the president himself was under Moscow’s direction and posed a threat to the United States.

    Take the Voter Verification Questionnaire before the deadline and make sure your records are up to date!

    Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Rejected By GOP-Led House Committee

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    4
    Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

      Fiscal fractures within the GOP torpedo Trump-backed budget…

      President Trump’s 2025 budget proposal — branded the “Big Beautiful Bill” — was dealt a devastating blow on Friday when the House Budget Committee voted it down in a 16–21 decision. All Democrats opposed it, but the decisive factor was a group of Republicans who broke ranks, citing concerns about federal debt and spending.

      The Proposal: Sweeping Trump Agenda, Big Price Tag

      The bill laid out a sweeping fiscal roadmap aligned with Trump’s priorities for a transformative second term: deep tax cuts, uncompromising immigration enforcement, increased defense spending, and accelerated domestic energy production. But its projected $2.5 trillion increase to the federal deficit over the next decade drew fire — even from within the GOP.

      Just days before the vote, a nonpartisan budget analysis warned that the proposal would exacerbate the national debt, which already exceeds $36 trillion. As Fox News reports, that forecast gave fiscal conservatives new ammunition to push back ahead of today’s committee meeting:

      The committee met on Friday to mark up and debate the bill, a massive piece of legislation that’s a product of 11 different House committees’ individual efforts to craft policy under their jurisdictions. The result is a wide-ranging bill that advances Trump’s priorities on the border, immigration, taxes, energy, defense and raising the debt limit.

      Emotions ran high in the hallway outside the House Budget Committee’s meeting room from the outset, however, giving the media little indication of how events would transpire.

      Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, who had been at home with his wife and newborn baby, surprised reporters when he arrived at the Cannon House Office Building after he was initially expected to miss the committee meeting.

      His appearance gave House GOP leaders some added wiggle room, allowing the committee to lose two Republican votes and still pass the bill, rather than just one.

      Office of Speaker Mike Johnson, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

      In the end, five Republican committee members voted against the bill:

      • Chip Roy (Texas)
      • Andrew Clyde (Georgia)
      • Lloyd Smucker (Pennsylvania)
      • Josh Brecheen (Oklahoma)
      • Ralph Norman (South Carolina)

      Smucker, who initially supported the measure, reversed his position and voted “no” at the last minute — adding insult to injury for supporters of the president’s agenda.

      The vote underscores a growing tension within the Republican Party: Are Trump’s populist, big-ticket proposals increasingly at odds with traditional conservative budget hawks who prioritize fiscal restraint? Only time will tell.

      Pennsylvania Supreme Court Weighs In On Mail-In Voter Debate

      By
      Patrick Houck
      -
      1

      In a pivotal decision on Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected due to errors—including missing signatures, incorrect dates or absence of a required secrecy envelope—can still cast their vote on Election Day. The 4-3 decision ensures that these individuals are allowed to submit provisional ballots at their local polling places, provided no additional disqualifying issues arise.

      The ruling originated from a case in Butler County, where two voters were denied the opportunity to vote provisionally after their mail-in ballots were rejected during the April primary for missing secrecy envelopes. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center represented the voters, arguing that the county had misinterpreted the state’s Election Code.

      Per Spotlight PA:

      Justice Christine Donohue, writing for the majority, noted that the Republican litigants argued that in order to maintain election integrity, provisional ballots should not be counted, but said the majority was “at a loss to identify what honest voting principle is violated by recognizing the validity of one ballot cast by one voter.”

      “If appellants presume that the general assembly intended to disqualify the provisional ballot of a voter who failed to effectively vote by mail in order to punish that voter, we caution that such a construction is not reconcilable with the right of franchise,” she wrote.

      The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center, which brought the case on behalf of two voters, celebrated the ruling as a victory.

      “Today’s decision affirms that if you make a paperwork mistake that will keep your mail ballot from counting, you have the right to vote by provisional ballot at your polling place on Election Day,” said Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center. “This reinforces the right to vote in Pennsylvania.”

      This decision holds broad implications for voters across Pennsylvania, offering a contentious solution for those facing similar issues in future elections. However, there was notable dissent, including from Justice P. Kevin Brobson, who contended that the state’s Election Code explicitly prohibits counting such provisional ballots.

      The ruling comes as Pennsylvania takes center stage in the 2024 election. Polls suggest a highly competitive race, with the latest RealClearPolitics average showing former President Donald Trump holding a slight 0.6-point lead over Vice President Kamala Harris.

      READ NEXT: Fmr. Democrat Congressman Caught Campaigning For Trump In PIVOTAL Swing State

      It’s Time To DRAIN THE SWAMP! Stop Supporting Career Politicians – Elect Dave McCormick! WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT! Help us win back the Senate.

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

      By
      Madeleine Jackson
      -
      2
      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.

      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 Plans To Capitalize On Schumer Shutdown With Plan To Axe Federal Agencies

      By
      Madeleine Jackson
      -
      5

      President Donald Trump announced he is scheduled to meet with Russ Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, to discuss which parts of the government he recommends cutting amid the Schumer Shutdown.

      “I have a meeting today with Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent,” the president wrote on Truth Social Thursday morning.

      “I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity,” he continued. “They are not stupid people, so maybe this is their way of wanting to, quietly and quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” 

      Trump Warns of Necessary Cuts as Shutdown Looms

      President Trump said Tuesday that while he would prefer to avoid a government shutdown, it could provide an opportunity to continue his mission of restoring fiscal sanity in Washington and eliminating wasteful spending.

      “We don’t want it to shut down because we have the greatest economy and investment environment ever,” Trump said from the Oval Office. “We’ve got $17 trillion being invested in this country right now. So the last person who wants a shutdown is us.”

      “But with that being said,” he continued, “a shutdown allows us to make reforms that are otherwise impossible — cutting bloated programs, trimming the fat, and removing layers of bureaucracy that serve no one but Washington insiders.”

      A government funding lapse doesn’t give the president new powers, but it does shift discretion to the White House and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which programs must continue and which can pause. The Antideficiency Act requires agencies to halt nonessential spending when Congress fails to pass appropriations, while preserving core constitutional and national security functions.

      Trump praised OMB Director Russell Vought for his leadership on budget discipline. “Russell Vought has been very popular lately because he knows how to bring the budget under control in ways Congress never would,” Trump said. “Shutdowns have risk for Democrats too — because during them, we can finally cut things they love to spend on, things that waste taxpayer dollars, and no one can reverse it.”

      Later that day, Trump reiterated that he wants a deal but will not ignore the chance to protect taxpayers if Democrats refuse to negotiate responsibly. “A lot of good can come from this,” he said. “We can finally weed out overspending and save Americans’ hard-earned money.”

      Vought, in a memo Tuesday evening, declared that a shutdown appeared unavoidable because of what he called “Democrats’ insane policy demands, including $1 trillion in new spending.” He told federal employees to prepare for an orderly pause in operations.

      Vice President JD Vance: Focus on Essential Services

      On Wednesday, Vice President JD Vance joined the White House press briefing to emphasize that while the administration expects the shutdown to be brief, some workforce reductions are unavoidable.

      “We’re going to have to make things work,” Vance said. “That means prioritizing essential functions and, unfortunately, letting go of some nonessential positions. Our goal is to make sure the American people feel as little pain as possible.”

      Vance pushed back on criticism that the administration is using the shutdown for partisan targeting: “We’re not going after agencies because of politics. We’re trying to keep critical services running, even when Democrats refuse to fund the government responsibly.”

      The Drive to Make Government Leaner

      These measures are part of Trump’s larger effort to make the federal government lean, accountable, and responsive to voters — not entrenched bureaucrats. In January, the administration offered voluntary buyouts for employees ready to step aside and avoid deeper cuts. Those were followed by reduction-in-force (RIF) plans across agencies with low performance or duplication of services.

      In his March address to Congress, Trump pledged to “reclaim power from unaccountable bureaucracy and return it to the American people.”

      “Any federal bureaucrat who resists this change will be removed from office,” Trump said. “We’re draining the swamp. The days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over.”

      DOGE and the Push Against Waste

      Central to this reform is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk was tapped to lead DOGE’s oversight efforts — leveraging innovation and private-sector discipline to expose costly, ineffective programs.

      DOGE has flagged millions in questionable foreign aid and pet projects that have little to do with serving Americans, including:

      • $25 million for “biodiversity and socially responsible behavior” in Colombia
      • $40 million to “improve the social and economic inclusion of sedentary migrants”
      • $42 million for “social and behavior change” initiatives in Uganda
      • $10 million for circumcision programs in Mozambique

      “Why are we paying for these things abroad when our own border is wide open and Americans are struggling?” Trump asked at CPAC, highlighting the findings.

      The Official Patriot Priorities Poll is LIVE. Share your views on our nation’s challenges and opportunities. [COMPLETE THE SURVEY]
      123...18Page 1 of 18
      © Great America News Desk 2022