Latest

    Government

    Home Government Page 2

    Insiders Say Trump Has Finally Settled On His 2028 Favorite

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    4
    President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is increasingly signaling that Vice President JD Vance is his preferred heir to the MAGA movement, according to multiple White House insiders, though the president has stopped short of offering a formal endorsement for the 2028 Republican nomination.

    The reports suggest Trump has moved away from privately weighing Vance against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and now speaks more confidently about the vice president’s political future.

    White House Sources Point To Vance

    According to Axios, White House aides say Trump has begun making comments such as “JD looks great” and no longer frames the question as a choice between Vance and Rubio. One administration source told Axios that “JD is earning it, and Trump sees it.”

    The turning point for Vance reportedly came in mid-June when he joined presidential envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff in helping negotiate the memorandum of understanding with Iran, a key step toward ending the conflict.

    The diplomatic breakthrough coincided with the June 16 release of Vance’s book, “Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith.” Already scheduled for a promotional tour, Vance received additional national exposure because of his prominent role in the negotiations.

    Vance conducted 33 interviews during June, appearing on conservative podcasts, at White House press briefings, in informal media gaggles, and on programs across the political spectrum, including HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” and ABC’s “The View.”

    One Trump adviser told Axios that although the president does not watch “The View,” he saw clips from Vance’s appearance and was pleased with what he saw.

    Trump Hasn’t Made It Official

    Despite the reports, Trump has not publicly endorsed Vance as his successor.

    Over the past year, the president has repeatedly praised both Vance and Rubio while emphasizing that the next presidential election remains years away. He has previously suggested that the vice president would naturally have an advantage but has also described Rubio as a strong potential leader.

    Political observers note that withholding a formal endorsement allows Trump to maintain influence within the Republican Party while avoiding an early succession battle.

    Rubio Remains An Influential Figure

    Rubio continues to be viewed as one of the administration’s most influential officials, but allies say he has shown little interest in challenging Vance for the Republican nomination.

    The secretary of state has publicly praised Vance and has previously indicated he would support the vice president if he decides to seek the White House in 2028.

    2028 Race Already Taking Shape

    Although the Republican presidential primary is still more than two years away, speculation about Trump’s eventual successor has intensified as potential candidates build fundraising networks and expand their national profiles.

    For now, Trump has not formally anointed a successor. But according to White House insiders, the president increasingly appears to view Vance as the leading contender to carry the MAGA banner after he leaves office.

    READ NEXT: Stephen A. Smith Predicts Democrats’ New Direction Could Cost Them Everything

    Have you abandoned MAGA too? Or can Trump still count on you? He needs an answer NOW.

    Former CIA Director Sues Trump Administration as Criminal Probes Intensify

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3
    By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54581054338/, Public Domain,

    Former CIA Director John Brennan is taking the Trump administration to court as two Justice Department criminal investigations into his conduct continue to gather steam.

    In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court in Washington, D.C., Brennan asked a judge to order the Justice Department, the White House, the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to preserve records related to the ongoing probes, arguing the materials could prove critical if he is eventually charged.

    The filing does not seek to stop the investigations. Instead, Brennan’s attorneys contend that internal emails, memos and other communications may become key evidence if they later argue any prosecution was motivated by politics rather than the facts.

    “The evidence of vindictiveness in this matter is overwhelming,” Brennan’s lawyers wrote in the 46-page complaint.

    The lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of using the criminal justice system to target political opponents, claiming Brennan has been “vindictively singled out for investigation and prosecution.”

    Brennan, who led the CIA under former President Barack Obama, has spent years publicly criticizing President Donald Trump. The two have been locked in a bitter feud dating back to Trump’s first term, when Brennan sharply criticized Trump’s handling of intelligence matters and Trump responded by revoking Brennan’s security clearance in 2018, calling his conduct “erratic” and accusing him of making “wild outbursts” about the administration. Brennan later became one of Trump’s most outspoken intelligence-community critics on television and in public appearances.

    Now, that long-running political rivalry has become intertwined with a pair of Justice Department investigations.

    One investigation is examining whether Brennan made false statements to Congress during 2023 testimony regarding the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

    The second is a broader probe examining allegations that Obama- and Biden-era intelligence and law enforcement officials participated in a years-long effort to undermine Trump’s political career. No charges have been filed against Brennan in either investigation.

    According to the lawsuit, Brennan intends to challenge any future indictment as “unconstitutionally vindictive and selective.” His attorneys argue that preserving government records now is essential because losing those materials could make it impossible to determine whether prosecutors acted appropriately.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb.

    Among those named as defendants are President Trump, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quiñones and other officials involved in the investigations.

    CBS News has reported that some current and former Justice Department officials have raised concerns about personnel changes within the Brennan investigations after career prosecutors were replaced by lawyers viewed as more closely aligned with the administration. CBS reported that attorney Joseph DiGenova was brought in to oversee one of the investigations, while constitutional scholar John Yoo and former Trump election security official Kurt Olsen have also joined the effort in advisory roles.

    The Justice Department declined to discuss the existence of any investigation but pushed back on Brennan’s allegations.

    “While we cannot comment on the existence, or lack thereof, of an investigation, it is certainly rich that John Brennan is accusing anyone of a ‘retribution campaign,'” a DOJ spokesperson said.

    Brennan’s attorneys also point to more than 100 public statements Trump has made about the former CIA director since 2017, arguing those remarks could become relevant if criminal charges are ultimately filed.

    For now, Brennan has not been charged with any crime. His lawsuit seeks only to preserve records that could become evidence if the investigations eventually lead to a prosecution.

    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.

    Supreme Court Issues Ruling On Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt President Donald Trump one of the biggest legal defeats of his second term, ruling that his executive order restricting birthright citizenship violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment and cannot take effect.

    In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in holding that the Constitution guarantees automatic U.S. citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented on the constitutional question but agreed the order could not be enforced under current federal law.

    The ruling effectively ends Trump’s effort to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause through executive action, preserving a constitutional principle that has been recognized for more than a century.

    Court Reaffirms 14th Amendment

    Writing for the majority, Roberts concluded that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause protects nearly all children born in the United States.

    The Court relied heavily on longstanding constitutional precedent, including the landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has long been understood to guarantee birthright citizenship except in narrow circumstances, such as children born to foreign diplomats or hostile occupying forces.

    Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day back in office, sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States unless at least one parent was either a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

    The administration argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States excludes children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. Most constitutional scholars, lower courts and ultimately the Supreme Court rejected that interpretation.

    A Signature Trump Policy Falls

    Birthright citizenship became one of the defining legal battles of Trump’s second-term immigration agenda.

    The president made the policy a centerpiece of his Day One executive actions, arguing that ending what he called “birth tourism” and removing incentives for illegal immigration would strengthen border security.

    The order never took effect after federal judges across the country blocked it, finding it likely violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court previously addressed procedural questions surrounding nationwide injunctions in the litigation but postponed deciding the constitutional merits until this term.

    Trump even attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court in April—an unprecedented move for a sitting president—and later acknowledged publicly that he expected the administration faced an uphill battle before the justices. (RELATED: Trump Makes Unprecedented Move and Attends SCOTUS Hearing On Birthright Citizenship)

    White House Defended Order

    Throughout the litigation, the Trump administration maintained that the executive order was constitutional.

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt repeatedly argued that birthright citizenship, as currently interpreted, conflicts with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and said the administration intended to defend the policy all the way to the Supreme Court.

    Senior White House adviser Stephen Miller, one of the administration’s chief architects of its immigration agenda, also argued before the decision that the Constitution does not require automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants or temporary visitors.

    As of Tuesday afternoon, the White House had not yet released a detailed official response to the ruling.

    Major Constitutional Defeat

    The decision represents one of the most significant judicial setbacks of Trump’s second presidency.

    While the administration has secured victories before the Court on several executive power disputes, Tuesday’s ruling preserves one of the nation’s oldest constitutional guarantees and leaves any change to birthright citizenship largely in the hands of Congress or a future constitutional amendment rather than presidential action.

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

    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 Unloads After Supreme Court Lets Carroll Verdict Stand

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    President Donald Trump blasted the Supreme Court after the justices refused to hear his appeal of the $5 million civil judgment in the E. Jean Carroll case, calling it another example of “weaponization” and vowing to keep fighting in court.

    The high court declined without comment to review Trump’s challenge to the 2023 jury verdict, leaving intact the ruling that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming longtime advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. The justices did not note any dissents.

    Trump wasted little time responding.

    “Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to ‘review’ a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!),” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

    “I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength.”

    The president argued the lawsuit was politically motivated, saying, “This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for, and should never be allowed to happen to another President, or Candidate to be!”

    Trump also renewed his criticism of New York’s Adult Survivors Act, the temporary law that opened a one-year window for decades-old sexual assault claims. He claimed the law was “tailormade” to target him and called the outcome an “Injustice.”

    Monday’s decision effectively closes the door on Trump’s effort to overturn the original $5 million verdict, which stemmed from a civil trial in Manhattan in 2023. During that trial, jurors concluded Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the mid-1990s and for defaming her after she publicly accused him. Trump has consistently denied the allegations and has maintained that he never met Carroll.

    The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case marks another legal setback for the president in his years-long battle with Carroll, but it is not the end of the broader litigation.

    A separate case, in which a federal jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million after finding Trump repeatedly defamed her through public statements, remains on a separate appellate track. Trump’s legal team continues to challenge that judgment, arguing it should be overturned on multiple grounds.

    Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, celebrated the ruling, saying the Supreme Court’s action “affirms once and for all” the jury’s verdict and Trump’s liability in the case.

    For Trump, however, Monday’s order appears to have only intensified his determination.

    “I will continue the fight,” the president wrote, signaling that his legal battle with Carroll is far from over—even as one of the highest-profile cases against him has now reached its end.

    [POLL ENCLOSED] President Trump has his eyes on the prize of stopping Iran’s mullahs from going nuclear. Let him know if you support this crucial effort.

    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
    -
    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.

    Judge Permanently Blocks Trump Order Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    9

    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
    -
    2
    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.
    123...18Page 2 of 18
    © Great America News Desk 2022