The Trump Organization has announced its latest business venture…
The Trump Organization announced Monday it is launching a new mobile phone business: Trump Mobile.
Donald Trump Jr., the president’s oldest son, announced the new initiative along with his brother Eric Trump, on the 10th anniversary of their father’s first announcing he was running for president, from Trump Tower in New York City.
Trump Jr. said the business group felt the mobile phone industry was another era in which there had been “lackluster performance” and in which there could be an opportunity to provide tech to an audience that is “underserved.”
With Trump Mobile, Trump Jr. said “we’re going to be introducing an entire package of products.”
He said at a press event that it would allow people to “get telemedicine on their phones for one flat monthly fee, roadside assistance for their cars,” and “unlimited texting for 100 countries around the world.”
“We think we’re going to be giving something unique to the American people,” he said.
A release regarding Trump Mobile said it would offer 5G service through all three major cellular carriers. Its flagship offering is also linked to the president: The 47 Plan.
It gives consumers the offerings of Trump Mobile for $47.45 per month, a price point that remarks on Trump’s time as the nation’s 45th and 47th president.
“Trump Mobile is going to change the game, we’re building on the movement to put America first, and we will deliver the highest levels of quality and service,” Trump Jr. said in a press statement. “Our company is based right here in the United States because we know it’s what our customers want and deserve.”
The announcement also said the Trump Organization would be introducing a new “TI Phone” in August, describing it as a “sleek, gold smartphone engineered for performance and proudly designed and built in the United States for customers who expect the best from their mobile carrier.”ump Organization would be introducing a new “TI Phone” in August, describing it as a “sleek, gold smartphone engineered for performance and proudly designed and built in the United States for customers who expect the best from their mobile carrier.”
A federal judge has found that Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier was in civil contempt of court over her ruling to pause a new state law making it a crime for people living in the U.S. illegally to enter the state.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ordered on April 29 that Uthmeier show cause on “why he should not be held in contempt or sanctioned” for violating a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the court, though Williams ultimately decided he was unable to convince her otherwise.
“If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it,” Uthmeier said Tuesday in a post on X.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation into law in February that made it a misdemeanor for illegal immigrants to enter the state as part of President Donald Trump’s push to crack down on illegal immigration.
But on April 4, Williams issued a 14-day TRO in response to the law, following a lawsuit filed by the Florida Immigrant Coalition and other groups. She then extended the TRO another 11 days after learning the Florida Highway Patrol had arrested over a dozen people, including a U.S. citizen.
The court said on April 18 that Florida law enforcement officers were bound by the TRO, preventing them from enforcing the criminal immigration law.
U.S. judge Kathleen Williams finds AG James Uthmeier in contempt of court after he disobeyed her court order blocking a new state immigration law. She quotes Humpty Dumpty. pic.twitter.com/QZWXki0uiV
The court also ordered the attorney general to provide notice to all law enforcement officers, which Uthmeier initially complied with.
On April 23, he sent a follow-up letter telling the law enforcement community that “no judicial order…properly restrains you from” enforcing the immigration law, adding that “no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce” the statute.
As a result, the court required Uthmeier to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt for violating the TRO.
It’s time to push back against these corrupt judges! They have no legitimate authority to enforce unconstitutional orders!
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier told a corrupt Obama judge that he will not order state authorities to halt enforcement of immigration law.
Following his response, the court opined that litigants cannot change the meaning of words as it suits them, ruling that Uthmeier was in contempt of the court’s April 18 order to provide the TRO to law enforcement officers regarding the enforcement of the immigration law.
As such, the court ordered Uthmeier to file bi-weekly reports detailing arrests, detentions or law enforcement actions when it comes to the immigration law prohibiting undocumented immigrants from entering the state of Florida, with the first being filed by July 1.
On Wednesday, President Trump said he had declined an offer from Russian leader Vladimir Putin to help with negotiations with Iran and Israel.
President Donald Trump spoke about the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict during an impromptu press conference on the White House lawn on Wednesday after he visited with some construction workers putting up new flag poles on the ground.
At one point in the exchange, Trump boasted about the U.S. achieving dominance over Iran’s skies before pivoting to discuss a recent phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“I mean, they’re totally defenseless. They have no air defense whatsoever. They’re totally captured. You know, we’ve totally captured the air,” Trump said of Iran’s airspace.
Trump then called on a reporter for another question, who asked, “Mr. President, you’ve been fairly compassionate towards the Iranian people—”
“I know a lot of people from Iran, from New York, from Washington, mostly from New York. They are incredible people. They’re smart, they’re energetic, they can be difficult, but so can you. You know, they are great people, smart people. And those people are getting the hell beat out of them now. And it’s really a shame. It’s so stupid. It’s stupid. This is another one. You know, Russia-Ukraine is so stupid, would have never happened if I was president,” Trump replied.
“You guys agree with that, right?” added the president, turning to the construction workers for reassurance.
“Would have never happened if I were president. Putin wouldn’t have done it. And I spoke to him yesterday, and I said, you know, he actually offered to help mediate. I said, ‘Do me a favor. Mediate your own. Let’s mediate Russia first, OK?’ I said, ‘Vladimir. Let’s mediate Russia first. You can worry about this later.’ But I think that’s going to work out, too, but so many people have been killed. The big thing with that one is far more people are dead than have been reported in the Ukraine-Russia. Many, many more people. A building falls down, they say nobody was hurt, you know. So, it’s ridiculous,” Trump concluded.
A different reporter then asked, “What does ‘unconditional surrender’ mean?”
“Well, you know what it means, ‘unconditional surrender.’ Two very simple words. A very simple, ‘unconditional surrender.’ That means I’ve had it. Okay, I’ve had it, I give up, no more. Then we go blow up all the nuclear stuff that’s all over the place there. No, they had bad intentions. You know, for 40 years they’ve been saying, ‘Death to America, Death to Israel,’ death to anybody else that they didn’t like,” Trump replied
Watch:
☎️ Trump said he spoke with Putin yesterday
According to him, Putin offered to help with negotiations on Iran — but was immediately put in his place:
💥 “I said, ‘Vladimir, let’s start with Russia first.’”
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rejected President Donald Trump’s calls for unconditional surrender on Wednesday.
“It isn’t wise to tell the Iranian nation to surrender,” he posted to X. “What should the Iranian nation surrender to? We will never surrender in response to the attacks of anyone. This is the logic of the Iranian nation. This is the spirit of the Iranian nation.”
In another tweet, he criticized Trump for his “absurd rhetoric” and “demands that the Iranian people surrender to him,” adding that he should “make threats against those who are afraid of being threatened. The Iranian nation isn’t frightened by such threats.”
Ayatollah Khamenei has rejected Trump's calls for an unconditional surrender and is threatening the U.S. if it gets involved in the conflict. pic.twitter.com/bZPup1xT7v
So far, Israel has killed at least 20 of Iran’s top military leaders, damaged key nuclear facilities, destroyed more than a third of Iran’s missile launchers, and hit over 1,100 targets around Iran.
On the evening of Tuesday, June 17, 2025, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was rushed by ambulance to a Washington, D.C. hospital after suffering what officials described as an allergic reaction. According to a statement from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Noem was treated “out of an abundance of caution” and remains in stable condition.
The medical emergency drew swift attention — not only because of Noem’s high-profile cabinet role, but also due to the timing. Just one day earlier, she had visited the Integrated Research Facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland, a high-security federal lab that handles some of the world’s most dangerous pathogens, including Ebola and SARS-CoV-2. She was accompanied on the tour by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
The Fort Detrick facility has been under scrutiny in recent months. In April, it was temporarily shut down following safety concerns involving possible tampering with personal protective equipment. Though the lab has since resumed operations, the incident left lingering questions about oversight and internal protocols.
While the proximity of Noem’s hospital visit to her tour of the lab has sparked speculation, DHS downplayed any connection. Officials stressed there is no indication the allergic reaction had anything to do with the biohazard site, and current evidence points to coincidence, not causation.
Still, the lack of detail surrounding Noem’s condition — and the decision to visit to a facility recently flagged for a safety lapse — has fueled speculation. Noem has not issued a public statement since the incident, though an official told the Associated Press that the secretary is “alert and recovering.”
Security around the hospital was visibly heightened following Noem’s arrival, with multiple eyewitnesses reporting Secret Service personnel stationed at emergency entrances and perimeter points.
As of now, Noem remains under medical supervision, and DHS has indicated she will resume duties once cleared by her doctors. The department has not disclosed whether additional tests are being conducted to rule out environmental or chemical triggers.
What We Know — and Don’t
The facts are straightforward, even if the full picture isn’t: Secretary Noem had an acute medical event. She had just visited a facility known for housing lethal biological agents. There’s no official link between the two events. But in an era when institutional trust runs thin and information gaps invite conspiracy theories, the sequence of events is likely to keep this story alive longer than a typical health scare.
For now, DHS says Noem is recovering and expected to make a full recovery. But until more details emerge — from medical professionals or Noem herself — the story will likely remain a focus of intense public interest.
Construction continues on new border wall system project near Yuma, AZ. Recently constructed border wall near Yuma, Arizona on June 3, 2020. CBP photo by Jerry Glaser.
In a disappointing turn for border security advocates, the Texas Legislature has officially canceled the state’s ambitious effort to build its own border wall — a project that Gov. Greg Abbott hailed in 2021 as a bold step toward protecting Texans in the absence of meaningful federal action. Despite allocating more than $3 billion to the initiative, only about 65 miles of wall — much of it scattered in rural areas — has been completed.
Gov. Abbott launched the state-funded wall project in December 2021 after Biden administration inaction left Texans on the front lines of an escalating border crisis. At the time, Texas was the first state to attempt such a massive undertaking — one born out of necessity as illegal crossings surged and federal authorities turned a blind eye.
Standing beside towering steel beams at the border, Abbott made it clear that Texas would do what President Biden refused to: secure the southern border. “It’s heavy and it’s wide,” he said. “People aren’t making it through those steel bars.” He was right — but it turns out they didn’t have to. Thanks to landowner restrictions, bureaucratic red tape, and court battles, the wall was never continuous. Instead, it became a patchwork of isolated segments that migrants — and cartels — could easily walk around.
According to The Texas Tribune, only 8% of the 805 miles identified for construction have been completed. Those segments — largely concentrated on privately owned ranches — often sit in remote areas with lower migrant traffic. In other words, the federal government’s refusal to act left the state with the toughest and most expensive terrain, forcing Texas to play defense on the hardest frontlines with both hands tied.
And while the total cost of the wall project now stands at more than $3 billion, legislators pulled the plug quietly, slipping the decision into the final state budget without debate or public notice.
The 2025-26 state budget, passed in early June, includes a substantial $3.4 billion allocation for border security — but none of that will fund further wall construction. Instead, those resources are being redirected to Operation Lone Star, Abbott’s ongoing border crackdown that mobilizes Texas Department of Public Safety officers and National Guard troops to deter illegal crossings and apprehend migrants.
Sen. Joan Huffman (R), who led budget negotiations, defended the shift, stating that wall construction “should have always been a function of the federal government.” Texas had stepped up, she said, because Washington had failed — and continued to fail.
Some GOP lawmakers have raised concerns not about the need for border security, but about the strategic wisdom of funding isolated wall segments. Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) questioned whether lawmakers were spending billions “to give the appearance of doing something rather than taking the problem on to actually solve it.” Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) was more blunt, calling it a “hamster wheel” strategy.
First Lady Melania Trump participates in the Senate Spouses Luncheon at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, May 21,2025. (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks)
Former MSNBC host Tiffany Cross mocked First Lady Melania Trump during a CNN debate on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown with some thinly-veiled sexual innuendo about “unique talent.”
By The White House – https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54426560683/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=163105965
On Tuesday’s edition of CNN NewsNight, anchor Abby Phillip hosted a panel that included Cross, Shermichael Singleton, Ana Kasparian, Ana Navarro, and Jim Schultz to discuss Trump’s immigration policy, specifically the increase in deportations under his watch.
Cross let loose on Melania as a “former nude model” who scored an “Einstein visa” of dubious merit, and on White House senior adviser Stephen Miller as a “White nationalist” running the show:
SCHULTZ: It’s inaction by Congress as to versus to why he starts, you know, thinking about it this way. You know, he has to almost legislate from the executive branch on this because no one’s doing anything about it.
PHILLIP: He could also — he could also —
SCHULTZ: Close the border.
PHILLIP: But, you know, he could also lead — he could also lead and say, hey, Congress — that my party controls and the House and the Senate. Put a bill together. Put something on the table because —
CROSS: He has a — people loyal — anyone of the people would have —
UNKNOWN: I don’t think he’d get a bill passed. I don’t think he would get a bill passed.
CROSS: I don’t think it’s even an effort to do that. But I just want to remind the viewers, his wife herself, a former nude model, got the Einstein visa to come over here, completely usurp the immigration system. What was her unique talent? I wonder that she was able to get that.
Furthermore, he’s increasing these — these deportations because he’s trying to be competitive with his predecessor, who I’m ashamed to say, Obama, who they called deporter-in-chief because he deported so many people, 430 something thousand, I believe, was the height of the year 2013.
— Tommy moderna-vaX-Topher (@tommyxtopher) June 18, 2025
The White House slammed former CNN correspondent Jim Acosta after a cruel joke about President Donald Trump’s late ex-wife Ivana during a politically charged tirade about immigration on a YouTube podcast.
Appearing on The Contrarian alongside hosts Jennifer Rubin and April Ryan for their “No Kings”-themed broadcast, Acosta took aim at Trump’s deportation raids and jibed that he had a history of marrying immigrants, including Ivana Trump, who died in 2022 and is buried at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey.
“How many immigrants has he married?” Acosta asked. “He’s got one buried at his golf course in New Jersey! Isn’t she buried by the first hole or the second tee or something like that?”
Laughter followed from Rubin and Ryan as Acosta piled on: “Immigrants always doing the jobs that Americans don’t want to do!”
The clip, flagged on X by journalist Jason Cohen, quickly drew outrage from the right and condemnation from the White House.
🚨NEW: Jim Acosta drags Trump's deceased ex-wife Ivana into *UNHINGED* rant about immigration raids🚨
"How many immigrants has he married? He's got one buried at his golf course in New Jersey!"
David B. Gleason from Chicago, IL, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
A Pentagon official has been removed from his role with the Joint Chiefs of Staff after his anti-Israel social media posts were brought to light
Colonel Nathan McCormack, who was tasked with helping advise the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Israel-related matters, was immediately fired after his anti-Israel posts were uncovered.
McCormack, who was the Levant and Egypt branch chief at the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s J5 planning directorate, according to his LinkedIn, posted several controversial tweets on his X account. He called Israel a “death cult” and referred to the Israeli government as “Netanyahu and his Judeo-supremacist cronies,” among other things, Jewish News Syndicate reported.
BREAKING:
The U.S. officially removes Colonel Nathan McCormack from his position at the Joint Chiefs of Staff for posts calling Israel a death cult and saying America is acting as Israel’s proxy. pic.twitter.com/b7iy9QKu9t
A Joint Staff official told The Daily Wire that the Department of Defense said McCormack was removed from his position with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and that the matter is being handed over to the U.S. Army for further action.
“Our global alliances and partnerships are vital to our national security, enhancing our collective defense, deterrence, and operational reach,” the official said.
McCormack’s semi-anonymous account has been deleted following JNS’s report.
The J5 directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff advises the chairman of the Joint Chiefs on military strategy, planning, and policy across a wide range of national security issues. McCormack’s role tasked him with preparing senior leadership to speak with partner nations —including Israel.
McCormack made the posts on an X account where he calls himself “Nate,” but has posted several times about his job and even shared a photo of his Meritorious Service Medal certificate.
Since assuming his position — which his LinkedIn says he began in June 2024 — McCormack has posted numerous times about his views on the Jewish state, especially after Hamas’s October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians.
“The Western states go to great lengths to avoid criticism of Israel, much out of Holocaust guilt,” McCormack tweeted in April.
In May, he posted that “Netanyahu and his Judeo-supremacist cronies are determined to prolong the conflict for their own goals: either to remain in power or to annex the land.”
“I’ve lately been considering whether we might be Israel’s proxy and not realized it yet,” he posted. “Our worst ‘ally.’ We get literally nothing out of the ‘partnership’ other than the enmity of millions of people in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.”
McCormack has also disclosed details about his official duties on the account, claiming in August 2024 that “we” warned Israel it would be “fuxked” if it escalated into an offensive against Lebanon. Despite the warning, Israel launched an invasion two months later and decimated the terrorist group Hezbollah. He also shared information about his conversations and briefings with Israeli Defense Forces officers.
McCormack’s account also shared information about his movements and work trips being canceled, according to JNS.
The Department of Defense has strict social media guidelines, including telling service members to “avoid use of Department of Defense titles, insignia, uniforms or symbols in a way that could imply DoD sanction or endorsement of content on your personal page.”
California appellate disciplinary panel upheld the recommendation to disbar constitutional law scholar and former Trump legal adviser John Eastman. The panel’s decision follows an earlier March 2024 ruling by Judge Yvette Roland of the State Bar Court, which found Eastman culpable of misconduct related to his legal strategies in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
Eastman, a longtime legal academic and former dean of Chapman University Law School, has been a prominent figure in election-related litigation. At the heart of the case was Eastman’s advocacy for then-President Donald Trump, particularly his role in questioning the certification of electoral votes and exploring constitutional mechanisms related to vice-presidential authority during the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.
The Review Department, which affirmed Roland’s ruling, concluded Eastman committed “multiple acts of moral turpitude” by making what it called “false and misleading statements” in legal filings. It alleged he advanced “frivolous” claims of voter fraud and helped develop a plan to urge Vice President Mike Pence to delay or refuse the certification of electoral results.
“Eastman’s actions undermined democracy itself,” the panel wrote in a sweeping conclusion.
Unless overturned by the California Supreme Court, the ruling effectively disbars Eastman — suspending his law license and disqualifying him from practicing in the state.
Eastman and his legal team have vigorously defended his actions as protected legal advocacy and free speech. During the proceedings, Eastman stated:
“To accuse me of making false statements runs afoul of my First Amendment right to raise questions.”
His attorneys argued that Eastman was performing his professional duty — raising constitutional questions and advocating for his client — not misleading courts or the public. However, the appellate panel rejected this argument, claiming he had gone beyond legal theorizing into knowingly advancing false claims.
Eastman’s legal team has vowed to appeal to the California Supreme Court, which has the authority to accept or reject the disbarment recommendation. If the ruling is upheld, Eastman will be permanently disbarred in California.
Without a whisper, David Brock once again took his seat in that deep club chair, the one upholstered in battered oxblood leather and steeped in quiet menace. He reached for his tailor-crafted inner pocket, drawing from it a fresh Davidoff 702 Double R. The oily Ecuadorian leaf caught flame with practiced ease, releasing those same familiar notes of dark chocolate and café crema. Nearby, a Baccarat tumbler appeared in a silent ritual of service, filled just so with Pappy Van Winkle, as though it had always been there. This wasn’t just habit. It was stagecraft, and the man in the chair was directing a performance with constitutional consequences.
There was no need for preamble. Those in the room knew why they were there. Brock was about to reintroduce the legal profession to its own velvet-clad nightmare. His audience, a quiet circle of left-wing patrons and media barons, leaned in as he explained the next phase of his campaign, not against Donald Trump per se, but against anyone daring to offer him or his allies a legal defense. This wasn’t about winning court cases. This was about ensuring those cases were never filed at all.
The 65 Project, Brock explained, was not an electoral effort. It was not a messaging campaign. It was war. A war against the 6th Amendment, that slender but essential clause guaranteeing every American the right to legal counsel. Its aim? To deprive Republicans, particularly those challenging elections or government orthodoxy, of any capable legal defense.
Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]
Run through Brock’s network of nonprofits and housed under Law Works, the 65 Project deployed seasoned political operatives to file bar complaints, ethics charges, and sanctions motions against Trump-affiliated attorneys. The power of the model lay in its asymmetry. A single complaint, even meritless, could cost an attorney tens of thousands of dollars and a year or more in disciplinary review. And even if dismissed, the stain was permanent.
In 2025, this campaign has not slowed. In February, the 65 Project filed a high-profile complaint against Edward Martin, then the interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia. His offense? Alleged conflicts of interest tied to representing January 6 defendants before his federal appointment. The complaint cited violations of Rule 4-1.7 of professional conduct, a detail blasted across the headlines of friendly media outlets. As of June, there is no word on whether the complaint succeeded, but that isn’t the point. The accusation is the punishment.
Incredibly, the 65 Project also targeted the sitting Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi. On June 5, 2025, a coalition including the 65 Project, Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law filed a 23-page ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” The complaint alleged that Bondi threatened DOJ lawyers with discipline or termination for failing to pursue President Trump’s political objectives, particularly via a February 5 “zealous advocacy” memo. It claimed her actions led to resignations and firings in violation of DOJ norms and Florida Bar rules. Yet, on June 6, the Florida Bar summarily rejected the complaint, citing a policy against investigating sitting officers appointed under the US Constitution. It was the third such complaint against Bondi, and the third rejection. Critics like DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle called the filings “vexatious” and politically motivated. That the 65 Project would go after a sitting Attorney General at all illustrates the sheer audacity, and absurdity, of their campaign. They have announced they will be filing more complaints against Bondi.
Even more outrageous, the same coalition named two additional Trump administration officials in their June 5 complaint: Emil Bove, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General. The complaint accused them contributing to a culture of unethical conduct within the Justice Department by pressuring career lawyers to ignore professional responsibilities and instead pursue political objectives at the behest of President Trump. The goal was clear: not just to intimidate one leader, but to undermine the credibility of an entire legal team working within the bounds of the law.
This complaint, like so many others, underscores the project’s enduring mission: to ensure lawyers think twice before defending Trump or any of his associates. Public defenders and private litigators alike have been swept into the net. Whether you were in court for Giuliani, or simply filed an amicus brief on election integrity, the 65 Project likely has your name on a list.
This strategy, weaponizing legal ethics as a partisan bludgeon, would have made Boss Tweed grin from ear to ear. Backroom operators like Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey would recognize it instantly. Harvey, managing editor of the Democratic Party’s press empire at the turn of the 20th century, orchestrated conventions from smoke-filled rooms in Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel, where policies were written not in law books, but on cocktail napkins between puffs of Havana cigars. Brock, in many ways, is his spiritual heir, using legal bureaucracy the way Harvey used ink and influence.
The Biden-appointed judiciary has not resisted. In Michigan, Democratic activists succeeded in convincing a federal judge to sanction every lawyer who filed election-related litigation for Trump in 2020. Among them: Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, and Stefanie Junttila. Each was ordered to pay legal fees to Democratic Party groups and attend re-education courses, under the euphemism of continuing legal education. The court referred them for possible disbarment, fulfilling Brock’s vision.
Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, has filed complaints against more than 100 attorneys across 26 states. The targets include high-profile figures like Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, and Cleta Mitchell. And while many of these complaints were dismissed by mid-2023, the damage to reputations and client relationships lingers.
The project’s tactics have drawn sharp rebuke. Congressman Lance Gooden, in April 2025, called the 65 Project a “political hit squad” and demanded a Justice Department investigation. Others on social media have accused the group of colluding with establishment Republicans to kneecap Trump’s legal allies. Yet Brock’s defenders frame the group as guardians of democracy, protecting the legal profession from ethical collapse.
Such framing is dishonest. When Alan Dershowitz defended Al Gore in 2000, no one suggested he should be disbarred for challenging election results. But now, lawyers challenging questionable election conduct on behalf of Republicans face professional ruin. This is not accountability. It is ideological warfare.
Critics may point out that the 65 Project has not secured many disbarments. That may be true, but they have achieved some high-profile penalties. Jenna Ellis was publicly censured by a Colorado judge in March 2023. Rudy Giuliani had his law license suspended in New York and is facing permanent disbarment proceedings in Washington, DC. John Eastman was disbarred in California following a March 27, 2024, decision by State Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland, who found him culpable of 10 out of 11 disciplinary charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. His license was placed on involuntary inactive status days later, rendering him ineligible to practice law in California. Eastman has appealed, but as of June 15, 2025, no reversal has been reported. He was also suspended from practicing law in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024, pending resolution of the California case. Lin Wood surrendered his law license in Georgia under pressure from multiple complaints. These results are rare but not insignificant. Still, the goal was never just disbarment. It was deterrence. It was a public display of consequence, a digital scarlet letter. No need to win in court when you can win in LinkedIn’s HR department.
The project has inspired imitators including the Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, and Lawyers for the Rule of Law. The Lincoln Project also targets law firms, encouraging junior associates to pressure partners against accepting GOP clients. Shutdown DC and the Un-American Bar maintain lists of “insurrectionist” lawyers. Others push the American Bar Association to adopt rules banning election challenges altogether, cloaking censorship in the rhetoric of professionalism.
Marc Elias, the left’s court general, has taken the mission even further, seeking to disqualify GOP candidates under the 14th Amendment, resurrecting post-Civil War measures to bar Trump allies from holding office. Lawsuits against Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, and others reflect this broader ecosystem of lawfare. It is a constellation of coordinated attacks designed to render conservative legal advocacy untenable.
And what of the Constitution? The Sixth Amendment was never meant to be partisan. It exists not to protect the powerful, but the accused. In America, even pariahs have lawyers. Even the guilty deserve defense. The 65 Project’s perverse genius is to flip that premise, treating legal representation as complicity, and enforcing political loyalty through professional terror.
David Brock did not build this machinery alone. Melissa Moss, a Clinton veteran, helped architect the effort. She recruited Democratic grandees, Tom Daschle, ABA presidents, former state judges, to lend legitimacy. Their goal? To make conservative legal advocacy professionally radioactive.
And it may be working. Some lawyers are declining GOP clients outright. Others fear disciplinary complaints, X mobs, or worse. The chilling effect is real, and precisely what the architects intended. The War on the Sixth is a war on courage, a war on professional independence, a war on the idea that justice should be blind.
In the end, Brock’s smoke-filled rooms are not about cigars or cocktails. They are about control. They are about ensuring that when Republicans step into a courtroom, they do so alone.
Despite suffering a major loss in court on Monday, MyPillow founder and staunch Trump loyalist Mike Lindell is remaining positive.
A federal jury in Colorado on Monday afternoon found MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell liable for defamation, siding with a former Dominion Voting Systems employee who alleged that the Donald Trump loyalist caused real-world harm with 2020 stolen election conspiracies he aired at his 2021 “cyber symposium,” an event that also proved costly for Lindell in the form of an ill-fated and boomeranging “Prove Mike Wrong Challenge.”
In the end, the jury found Lindell liable for defaming Dr. Eric Coomer, along with his company FrankSpeech for participating in a civil conspiracy to do the same, leaving the MyPillow CEO on the hook for $2.3 million — a far cry from the $60-plus million Coomer’s team asked for but nonetheless a loss for Lindell, according to Kyle Clark of 9NEWS.
It wasn’t a total loss for Lindell, however, as MyPillow escaped liability — reportedly as Coomer’s legal team requested.
In an interview with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani on LindellTV after the verdict, Lindell offered his reaction, saying: “It was awesome.”
Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr
“I hope Mike doesn’t feel too down. He never does,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said as he kicked it to Lindell for a statement.
“It was awesome,” Lindell told Giuliani.
He also called the judgment a “huge victory for our country,” adding that, “MyPillow was sued for no reason and they won.”
“All the pillow companies have to be happy because now they can’t be sued for libel.”
Lindell had long maintained that he has “done nothing wrong,” that he truly believes his claims about the election, and that both he and his allies have instead been persecuted and subjected to “lawfare” for simply asking questions about the integrity of the 2020 election, in violation of their First Amendment rights.
In a video and post shared Monday on X ahead of the verdict, Lindell remarked upon the gravity of his situation: “Today the jury decides.”
https://t.co/ipaZcOhd5z Today the jury decides. We’re standing on God’s Word, believing for victory! Thank you for your prayers and support as we fight for secure elections and free speech. Isaiah 54:17 pic.twitter.com/KaphgbJnOC
“I really believe, God willing, that this will be the gateway to securing our elections, bringing back free speech and the American dream, and saving our country,” he said, before asking his supporters for prayers and directing them to the website for his legal defense fund.
