Home Blog Page 2

George Santos Deserves Prison, Not A Pardon

0
(Miami - Flórida, 09/03/2020) Presidente da República Jair Bolsonaro durante encontro com o Senador Marco Rubio..Foto: Alan Santos/PR

George Santos did not stretch the truth. He did not fudge numbers. He did not run afoul of technicalities in campaign finance law. He stole, lied, and exploited vulnerable people for personal and political gain. These were not victimless crimes, nor were they victimless lies. They were part of an elaborate scheme to build a fraudulent political career on a foundation of stolen funds, fictitious wealth, and unearned trust. It is time conservatives stop equivocating. If George Santos were not a thief, he might have been a talented, even promising political figure. But he is a thief, and a spectacularly cynical one at that. He stole from the old and the sick, he stole from donors, he stole from the US taxpayer. He is not a misunderstood maverick or a casualty of overzealous prosecution. He is a con man, and a criminal.

Let us begin, as the law did, with the false image he built. Santos, through deliberate lies to the Federal Election Commission and his own party, fabricated a story of fundraising success. In early 2022, he claimed to have raised over $250,000 in a single quarter from third-party donors, including a personal loan of $500,000 to his own campaign. These were lies. He did not have the money. He did not receive these donations. But this mirage of financial viability was just enough to secure his acceptance into the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns” program, granting him financial, logistical, and strategic support. The GOP, believing they were backing a legitimate, self-sustaining candidate, diverted valuable resources to a fraud.

But Santos did not merely fake donor support. He invented donors. Using the identities and financial information of real people, Santos charged their credit cards repeatedly, funneling the proceeds into his campaign, other political committees, and even his own bank account. Nearly a dozen people were victimized, including individuals least capable of defending themselves. One woman, suffering from brain damage, had thousands of dollars withdrawn without her consent. Two elderly men in their eighties, each suffering from dementia, had their identities stolen and their cards charged. These were not passive accounting errors or clerical mistakes. These were acts of intimate, cold exploitation. Santos knew these people, spoke with them, thanked them for their support, and then used their vulnerability against them.

In one egregious instance, a donor who had already given the legal maximum found his credit card charged an additional $15,800 without authorization. Santos disguised this theft by attributing the funds to fabricated family members in his FEC reports, a maneuver that allowed him to continue the ruse while avoiding contribution limits. In another, he charged $12,000 to a donor’s account and deposited the majority into his personal bank. From there, it funded clothing, cosmetics, credit card bills, and gambling trips. The campaign, the candidacy, the public service, all were secondary to a lifestyle of luxury paid for by other people’s money.

Perhaps the most hypocritical of Santos’s frauds involved the pandemic. In 2020, he applied for and received over $24,000 in unemployment benefits from the state of New York. At the time, he was gainfully employed as a regional director at a Florida-based investment firm, earning over $120,000 a year. He did not miss a paycheck. He was not laid off. He did not qualify. And yet, each week, he falsely certified his jobless status, drawing taxpayer-funded aid designed for those hit hardest by COVID-19, the unemployed, the underemployed, the financially desperate. In an act of gall that would be laughable if it were not so despicable, Santos later sponsored legislation in Congress to crack down on pandemic unemployment fraud. The man who stole from the system claimed he would reform it.

Nor did the deception stop there. Santos lied on his congressional financial disclosures, the forms meant to ensure transparency for public officials. He claimed to have earned $750,000 in salary from a private company that paid him nothing. He reported receiving $1 to $5 million in dividends that never existed. He declared hundreds of thousands in bank holdings, when in fact his accounts were often in the low thousands, if not lower. In reality, his only actual income came from the investment firm and the unemployment checks he falsely obtained. The lies were not incidental. They were comprehensive, deliberate, and aimed at creating an illusion of wealth and competence.

Even more brazenly, Santos fabricated an independent expenditure group, a supposed political action committee called RedStone Strategies. He solicited two donors for $25,000 each, promising that the funds would be used for media buys and campaign efforts. They were not. Santos transferred the money into accounts he controlled and spent it on Ferragamo, Hermes, Botox, and credit card bills. This was not merely unethical. It was embezzlement. It was theft. It was a fraud perpetrated with full knowledge and intent.

In total, Santos stole or misappropriated approximately $578,750. The court ordered him to pay $373,749.97 in restitution and to forfeit an additional $205,002.97. These numbers were not speculative. They were calculated against real losses to real people, individuals whose credit was damaged, whose money was siphoned away, whose trust was obliterated. Santos’s 87-month sentence, or just over seven years, was not an outlier in the federal system. It was a typical penalty for this kind of sprawling, malicious financial fraud. Defendants with no political profile, who defrauded the government or private individuals out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, routinely receive similar sentences. That Santos was a congressman did not result in his being singled out. If anything, it spared him scrutiny longer than he deserved.

There is no serious argument for clemency here. Clemency is for excess, for injustice, for punishment that outstrips wrongdoing. Clemency is not for grifters who fake their way into office by stealing from pensioners and pandemic relief funds. One does not defend George Santos by invoking freedom, fairness, or limited government. To the contrary, every dollar Santos stole weakened the legitimacy of our electoral system, diverted support from legitimate candidates, and degraded the moral clarity conservatives must offer in a dishonest age. The true conservative position is to say plainly: this man is a crook.

Yes, Santos was charismatic. Yes, he had a knack for commanding attention. And yes, in another life, with honesty and principle, he might have served well. But we do not excuse embezzlement because the embezzler is clever. We do not overlook theft because the thief is funny. Our movement has spent decades insisting that character matters. If that is still true, then George Santos is not a man to be platformed or pitied. He is a cautionary tale.

Some will argue that Santos’s sentence was harsh. Perhaps. But that is not a reason to pardon him. It is a reason to scrutinize sentencing guidelines for all non-violent financial offenders. Santos should be treated like any other fraudster, no worse, no better. And by that measure, he has been.

Others say we should forgive him because the media was against him. But the media is against every Republican. What makes our side different, or should, is our insistence on personal responsibility. George Santos did what he did. He admitted it. He pled guilty. He is being punished in accordance with the law. He is not a martyr. He is a criminal.

Those who now seek to rebrand Santos as a political prisoner or conservative folk hero are doing damage not only to the movement, but to the truth. And that matters. For if we cannot call theft what it is, if we cannot call fraud what it is, if we cannot reject the normalization of criminality in our own ranks, then we are not a movement of principle. We are just another racket.

If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.

READ NEXT: Unstable Leader Pushes Reckless Nuclear Gamble

Governor Signals Plan To Redistrict Lone GOP Rep Out Of His Seat To Make State ‘More Fair’

2

Maryland Governor Wes Moore (D) might be the latest state leader to dive into the ongoing redistricting chaos across the country.

Governor Wes Moore appeared on CBS News’ “Face The Nation” on Sunday and said that, in the interests of “fairness,” he is considering gerrymandering the lone Republican in his state’s congressional delegation out of a U.S. House seat.

Republican Rep. Andy Harris in Maryland’s First Congressional District. 

“I want to make sure that we have fair lines and fair seats,” said Moore. 

Harris is the only Republican of Maryland’s ten members of Congress. The Daily Wire reported in 2024, President Donald Trump received over a third of Maryland’s vote. He lost the state to former Vice President Kamala Harris, who won 63% of the state’s vote.

Moore said his plan to potentially gerrymander Harris out of the first district is about fighting against “situations where politicians are choosing voters.”

“We need to be able to have fair maps, and we also need to make sure that if the president of the United States is putting his finger on the scale to try to manipulate elections because he knows that his policies cannot win in a ballot box, then it behooves each and every one of us to be able to keep all options on the table to ensure that the voters’ voices can actually be heard,” Moore said.

Watch:

Last week, the Texas state legislature passed a new congressional map that favors Republicans winning an extra five seats in the U.S. House in the upcoming midterm elections.

The GOP push to redistrict in favor of Republicans has sparked a backlash from Democratic state officials who want to lean further into gerrymandering. California Governor Gavin Newsom has put forward a plan to draw a new map that could claw Democrats another five seats in California’s already overbalanced congressional delegation.

However, in order for Newsom’s plan to succeed, California voters must approve the new map since redistricting congressional seats in the state is controlled by an independent commission under a 2010 law. 

California Republicans filed a lawsuit on Tuesday to stop the Democrat-dominated state legislature from holding a vote by the end of this week to advance the redistricting push.

“Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California’s Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,” Assembly member Tri Ta said on X.

The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a monthlong review period for new legislation.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia Taken Into Custody By ICE

1
Arrest image via Pixabay

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the immigrant deported to El Salvador who became a political flashpoint for the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, was detained again on Monday

Speaking to reporters outside the ICE Field Office in Baltimore after Abrego Garcia was detained, his lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said ICE officials had declined to tell them where they were detaining Abrego Garcia prior to his removal, or tell them why they were arresting him. 

“As of the last five minutes, Mr. Abrego Garcia has filed a new lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Maryland challenging his confinement and challenging his deportation to Uganda, or to any other country unless and until he’s had a fair trial— as in, an immigration court, as well as his full appeal rights,,” Sandoval-Moshenberg sad.

The habeas petition, filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland, was assigned to U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who has presided since March over his civil case.

Abrego Garcia, who fled El Salvador as a teenager and lived in Maryland, addressed supporters before entering his appointment.

“My name is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and I want you to remember this, remember that I am free and I was able to be reunited with my family,” he said. “This was a miracle. Thank you to God and thank you to the community. I want to thank each and every one of you who marched, lift your voices, never stop praying, and continue to fight in my name.”

Abrego Garcia’s legal fight for months has dominated U.S. headlines, after he was deported by the Trump administration to El Salvador in violation of a 2019 court order. He faces a possible second deportation, this time to Uganda.

Shortly before his arrival Monday morning, immigration advocates, faith leaders, and other community members massed outside the field office at sunrise for a vigil, organized by two immigration advocacy groups.

The Trump administration returned him to the U.S. months after sending him to El Salvador, under orders from a federal judge and from the Supreme Court.

He was arrested upon return to the U.S. on human smuggling charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennesee. He remained in federal detention until Friday, when he was released from U.S. custody and ordered to return to Maryland, where a judge said he could remain under electronic surveillance and under ICE supervision while awaiting trial.

ICE officials notified Abrego Garcia’s attorneys shortly after his release on Friday that they planned to deport him to Uganda.

The notice, sent by ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Adviser, said it was intended to “serve as notice that DHS may remove your client, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, to Uganda no earlier than 72 hours from now (absent weekends).”

Trump’s border czar Tom Homan told Fox News in an interview Sunday night that Abrego Garcia was “absolutely” going to be deported from the U.S, and said Uganda is “on the table” as the third country of removal. 

“We have an agreement with them. It’s on a table, absolutely,” Homan said in an interview on “The Big Weekend Show” Sunday evening.

“He is absolutely going to be deported,” Homan reiterated. 

For now, he said, Abrego Garcia “can enjoy the little time he has with his family. And for the person who says we’re not going to separate family, his family can go with him, because he’s leaving.”

Media Buzzes Over Trump’s Appearance – But Health Remains Strong, White House Says

Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump set off another round of social media speculation Friday after cameras caught what looked like copious amounts of makeup on his hand during public appearances in Washington.

A patch of foundation, slightly lighter than his skin tone, was visible while he toured an exhibit at The People’s House museum. Later that day, during the World Cup 2026 draw event at The Kennedy Center, Trump kept one hand over the other while addressing the crowd — a move that didn’t go unnoticed by outlets like The Daily Beast, which pointed out the recurring appearance of cosmetic cover.

This isn’t the first time similar images have made the rounds. Observers cited previous instances following Trump’s meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron in February, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in July, and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Asked about the chatter, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt brushed aside the tabloid-style coverage.

“President Trump is a man of the people, and he meets more Americans and shakes more hands on a daily basis than any other president in history,” Leavitt told The Independent Saturday. “His commitment is unwavering, and he proves that every single day.”

The renewed scrutiny follows last month’s stir over photos showing discoloration and swelling in Trump’s legs during a FIFA Club World Cup appearance. The White House later confirmed the president has chronic venous insufficiency — a common circulatory condition in which blood pools in the veins due to weakened valves.

According to the Cleveland Clinic, the condition can lead to discomfort but is manageable. Leavitt said Trump isn’t in pain and hasn’t required treatment or changes to his daily routine.

In April, White House physician Capt. Sean Barbabella declared the president in “excellent cognitive and physical health” after his annual checkup. He attributed bruising on Trump’s hands to aspirin therapy, a standard precaution for heart health.

Leavitt emphasized that the president’s physician remains available to answer any medical questions and insisted, “There is nothing to hide.”

READ NEXT: Former Trump Ally Issues Fiery Response To Shock Report

Maher Sounds Alarm – Trump Could Flip Marijuana Issue On Democrats

2

On Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher, the long-time cannabis advocate gave credit where credit’s due — to Donald Trump.

Maher acknowledged Trump’s emerging strategy to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. It’s not full legalization, but it’s a significant shift that would loosen federal restrictions and move the ball forward on reform.

He didn’t mince words. “I’ve been telling Democrats for years, the Republicans are gonna steal pot from you as an issue,” Maher said, half-joking, half-dead-serious.

WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE

What’s notable here isn’t just the policy — it’s who’s moving on it. Trump, once again, is positioning himself as a disruptor who knows how to cut through noise and win over voters issue by issue.

Decider offers more information on Maher’s grudging respect for Trump’s “genius” strategy:

He drove it home with a riff on Trump’s playbook: “He’s the master at winning votes from small groups who are passionate about one issue, picking up a couple percent here, a couple there…” until Election Night turns into something like a bizarre Y-M-C-A celebration.

And when it comes to timing, Maher confessed—with tongue in cheek—that Trump finally swung by his own camp. “Finally, he got around to me,” he teased during his “New Rules” segment—comparing his own potential shift to that of single-issue Black voters who helped Trump make gains in key cities.

“What did you expect?” he shrugged. “He’s the master…” And amid all of this, Trump has already said he’ll have a decision on cannabis rescheduling “in the next few weeks”—a move that would send seismic ripples through the cannabis industry and potentially benefit Maher personally, since he co-owns The Woods, a West Hollywood consumption lounge.

Maher, who still identifies as a Democrat but often breaks ranks — especially with the woke crowd — used the moment to throw up a red flag to his own party. He warned that if Democrats keep dragging their feet, Republicans could flip the script and claim an issue long seen as their turf.

For all his usual sarcasm, Maher’s comments carried real weight: a unenthusiastic but clear nod to Trump’s political instincts — and a warning shot to Democrats who think this base-level issue is locked up.

READ NEXT: Leaked Emails: Team Biden Caught Smearing Scientist After Train Disaster

Trump Administration Moves To Deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia – To Uganda

Gage Skidmore Flickr

New court filings reveal that the Trump administration is threatening to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda — a move his attorneys describe as coercive. Abrego, a Salvadoran man mistakenly deported to El Salvador earlier this year, declined a plea deal tied to human smuggling charges. In response, prosecutors withdrew an offer that would have allowed him to enter Costa Rica — a safe, Spanish-speaking country where he’d face no detention after serving time — and instead pursued deportation to Uganda.

His attorneys argue immigration authorities are essentially offering a forced choice: accept guilt and a path to Costa Rica, or refuse and risk being sent to Uganda, where his safety — and legal protections — are uncertain at best.

As The Hill reports:

Federal prosecutors on Thursday offered Abrego Garcia the option to “live freely” with refugee or residency status in Costa Rica after serving prison time for federal human smuggling charges in exchange for a guilty plea, per his lawyers in the Saturday filings.

Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to a notorious prison in his native El Salvador, declined the offer on Friday to instead return to his family in Maryland. He had been imprisoned in a Tennessee jail.

After his return to Maryland, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys were notified later in the day that he must report to an Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) field office in Baltimore on Monday — and that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to deport him to Uganda.

“The only thing that happened between Thursday—Costa Rica—and Friday—Uganda— was Mr. Abrego’s exercise of his legal entitlement to release under the Bail Reform Act and the Fifth Amendment…,” Abrego Garcia’s defense team wrote.

Saturday’s revelations mark a significant escalation, as Uganda recently entered into a U.S. agreement to accept third-country deportees— but explicitly excluding individuals with criminal records or unaccompanied minors. Abrego’s legal team contends that his criminal charges make such deportation both inappropriate and potentially dangerous.

READ NEXT: Dem Forced To Eat Words After Defending Alleged Criminal

US Takes 10% Stake In Intel Under Trump To Strengthen Chip Production

Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

A public-private deal aims to bring microchip manufacturing back to American soil — and deliver taxpayer returns in the process.

A Strategic Bet on Semiconductors

President Donald Trump announced Friday that chipmaker Intel agreed to give the U.S. government a 9.9% equity stake, valued at $8.9 billion. The move, the first of its kind under the CHIPS and Science Act, is intended to strengthen domestic semiconductor capacity and ensure that federal subsidies come with direct returns for taxpayers.

“They’ve agreed to do it, and I think it’s a great deal for them,” Trump told reporters during a briefing. The agreement follows internal administration discussions about using existing Commerce Department funding to acquire a stake in Intel, an effort confirmed earlier in the week by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

The stake is expected to be funded through the CHIPS Act and the Department of Defense’s Secure Enclave program. It will be a passive investment, meaning the government will not receive board seats, governance rights, or special access to information.

Intel Under Scrutiny

Trump also shed light on how the agreement came about — including a conversation with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, whose background had drawn criticism from Capitol Hill.

Earlier this month, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) raised alarms over Tan’s past leadership of Cadence Design Systems, which in 2008 pleaded guilty to illegally exporting chip design software to a Chinese military university. Tan’s investments in China-based firms had also raised national security concerns.

“I said, ‘Well that’s right, he should resign,’” Trump said. “And he came in, he saw me, we talked for a while. I liked him a lot. I thought he was very good. I thought he was somewhat a victim, but, you know, nobody’s a total victim, I guess.”

Following their meeting, Trump floated the idea that Intel should offer a 10% equity share to the U.S. government.

“He said, ‘I would consider that,’” Trump recalled. “Intel has been left behind, as you know, compared to [Nvidia CEO] Jensen [Huang] and some of our friends.”

Commerce: “We Can’t Rely on Taiwan”

Commerce Secretary Lutnick emphasized that the deal has more to do with national security than boardroom politics. In an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box, Lutnick pointed out that Taiwan, which manufactures over 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors, sits just 80 miles from China.

“We cannot rely on Taiwan, which is 9,500 miles away from us and only 80 miles from China,” Lutnick said. “So, you can’t have 99 percent of leading-edge chips made in Taiwan. We want to make them here.”

He noted that the administration wants to ensure that U.S. companies are capable of producing next-generation chip nodes domestically.

“One of those pieces is, it would be lovely to have Intel be capable of making a U.S. node or a U.S. transistor — driving that in America,” Lutnick added.

A Rare Bipartisan Signal

The move drew support across ideological lines, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) praising the basic premise: that if the federal government is handing out billions in subsidies, the public should see a share of the profits.

“No. Taxpayers should not be providing billions of dollars in corporate welfare to large, profitable corporations like Intel without getting anything in return,” Sanders said. “If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment.”

Not Everyone on Board

Some conservatives pushed back against the concept of government equity stakes in private corporations.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called the proposal a “terrible” precedent.

“If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism?” Paul wrote in a post on X.

Despite the criticism, the administration has defended the agreement as a narrowly targeted investment — not a takeover — intended to align taxpayer contributions with long-term national and economic security.

Looking Ahead

The Intel stake marks a sharp departure from traditional federal industrial policy. Rather than simply issuing grants or tax breaks, the administration is pursuing a more transactional model: public money in, public equity out.

For the Trump administration, the goal is clear — to use government leverage to secure America’s position in next-generation chip manufacturing and reduce dependence on overseas supply chains.

READ NEXT: When Loyalty Breaks: Hegseth Moves Against Key Military Leader

Trump Eyes Chicago In Crime Crackdown Expansion

President Donald Trump announced Friday that he plans to expand his crime crackdown strategy to Chicago, calling the city “a mess” and signaling more federal involvement in local law enforcement.

This move comes after the recent federal takeover of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and the deployment of federal agents — including National Guard troops — across Washington, D.C., as part of the administration’s ongoing law-and-order agenda.

“After we do this will go to another location, and we’ll make it safe, also. We’re going to make our country very safe,” Trump said to reporters while seated at the Resolute desk. “We’re going to make our cities very, very safe. Chicago’s a mess.”

Unsurprisingly, progressive Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson isn’t on board. In recent weeks, he has fired back at Trump’s threats, touting a supposed drop in crime under his leadership. Johnson points to homicides being down more than 30% and shootings nearly 40% compared with last year.

He also warned that bringing in the National Guard would only make matters worse, calling it “destabilizing.” Johnson pointed to the Trump administration’s record, arguing that its $158 million cut to violence prevention funding created upheaval in underserved communities.

Gov. JB Pritzker — widely seen as a likely 2028 presidential contender — also pushed back, accusing Trump of making personal attacks and defending Illinois’ progressive approach to criminal justice reform.

Fox News continues:

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump threatened to federalize D.C. because of the city’s struggle to control crime. The Aug. 3 attempted carjacking and brutal beating of a former Department of Government Efficiency staffer brought the issue back to the spotlight, sparking national debate. The following week, on Aug. 11, Trump declared a crime emergency in D.C., sparking the federal takeover.

“The city government’s failure to maintain public order and safety has had a dire impact on the federal government’s ability to operate efficiently to address the nation’s broader interests without fear of our workers being subjected to rampant violence,” Trump’s executive order read.

On Friday, Trump declared on Truth Social that D.C. was “safe again” and that it would soon “be great again.” He also praised law enforcement personnel for “doing a fantastic job.”

Under the Posse Comitatus Act and the 10th Amendment, the president can’t deploy federal or National Guard troops into a state without the governor’s approval — unless certain rare conditions are met. Without that consent, the move would almost certainly trigger a constitutional fight.

READ NEXT: Fed Chair Drops Bombshell — Markets Respond Furiously

Supreme Court Greenlights Trump NIH Cuts Targeting DEI, COVID Research

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to move forward with nearly $800 million in cuts to National Institutes of Health grants.

The decision allows the administration to withhold funds that had been frozen by a lower court — grants largely tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, as well as studies focused on minority health, LGBTQ+ issues, vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19, and similar public health topics.

A federal trial court in Massachusetts had previously ruled in June that many of the cuts were “arbitrary and discriminatory,” ordering the temporary restoration of those grants.

But the Supreme Court, acting through its emergency — or so-called “shadow” — docket, overrode that ruling in a narrow 5–4 decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal bloc in dissent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a sharply worded dissent of her own, criticizing the court’s reliance on the emergency process and the brevity of the majority’s explanation.

As SCOTUSBlog reports, the court — also by a 5–4 margin — left in place another part of the lower court’s ruling affecting internal NIH guidance documents outlining the agency’s policy priorities:

Justice Amy Coney Barrett provided the key vote on each issue. She joined Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh in voting to allow NIH to terminate the grants, but she joined Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in voting to leave the lower court’s ruling on the guidance documents in place.

Jackson had sharp words for her colleagues, describing the ruling as “Calvinball jurisprudence” – a reference to the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon – “with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.”

NIH ended hundreds of grants it linked to DEI-related studies in response to a series of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump after his inauguration in January. The first order, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” instructed the director of the Office of Management and Budget, assisted by the attorney general and the director of the Office of Personnel Management, to work to end “discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI” programs in the federal government. It was followed by two other executive orders, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”

Two separate groups of plaintiffs went to federal court in Massachusetts to challenge the termination of the grants. One group is made up of 16 states whose public universities receive funding from NIH, while the other consists of the American Public Health Association, individual researchers, a union, and a reproductive health advocacy group. They contended that the termination of the grants violated both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law governing administrative agencies.

The administration argues the research in question lacks scientific rigor and was driven more by ideology than merit. Officials also say the cuts are consistent with their broader push to eliminate DEI-related spending across federal agencies.

Democrat-led states and advocacy groups claim the funding loss could have “incalculable” consequences for underserved communities.

This case fits a broader pattern: The court has recently upheld rollbacks on DEI-based spending in areas like teacher training. Critics say the use of the emergency docket limits public transparency and bypasses full hearings. Supporters say it’s a legitimate tool to keep activist courts in check.

Legal challenges are still moving through the lower courts.

In the meantime, universities, NIH personnel, and left-leaning advocacy groups are mobilizing in protest, warning of long-term damage to public health research and institutional equity efforts.

READ NEXT: Police Swarm Former Trump Ally’s Mansion

Smartmatic Execs Accused Of Bribery Scheme Tied To $300M LA Voting Contract

Federal prosecutors in Miami say top Smartmatic executives funneled money from a $300 million Los Angeles County voting contract into an illegal slush fund.

According to the Justice Department, Smartmatic co-founder Roger Alejandro Piñate Martinez and two others used shell companies and fake invoices to siphon off cash from the taxpayer-funded deal. That money allegedly ended up in bribes paid to government officials in Venezuela and the Philippines.

Joe DePaolo of Mediaite offers further insights:

Smartmatic is suing Fox News for $2.7 billion — alleging the network defamed them by promoting President Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen election in the days and weeks after the 2020 vote.

The new filing is part of a corruption case in Florida against the three Smartmatic executives for allegedly operating a bribery and money-laundering scheme in which they are accused of paying off an election official in the Philippines to help secure $182 million in contracts. The DOJ also claims the executives carried a similar plot with a Venezuelan official — whom the executives gave a home with a pool in 2019, according to prosecutors.

The DOJ hasn’t charged Smartmatic as a company, nor has it accused any L.A. County officials of wrongdoing. Still, the department is clearly using the L.A. contract to establish a pattern of corrupt practices tied to the voting tech firm.

DePaolo continues:

Notably, the original case against the Smartmatic executives was brought in August 2024, during the final months of the Biden administration.

In a statement provided to the Los Angeles Times, Smartmatic spokesperson Samira Saba said the DOJ’s filing contained misrepresentations that were “untethered from reality.”

The DOJ’s latest move builds on earlier charges against the same executives. Federal prosecutors had previously accused Piñate of laundering money through a similar slush fund to bribe election officials in the Philippines during the 2016 elections.

To be clear, no one is alleging votes were tampered with or election results altered. The charges focus strictly on financial corruption — kickbacks, shell firms, and international bribery.

READ NEXT: Former Trump Ally Issues Fiery Response To Shock Report