Category: Breaking the Law

Trump Commerce Grants UAE AI Chip Access After Sheikh’s Investment

The Trump administration’s Commerce Department granted the United Arab Emirates license-free access to critical U.S. artificial intelligence technology, including advanced semiconductor chips. The decision follows a $500 million investment by Abu Dhabi royal Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan in World Liberty Financial, a Trump family cryptocurrency venture, which Eric Trump finalized four days before the president’s inauguration.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren condemned the arrangement as a “corrupt deal” and demanded testimony from Commerce Department officials, citing direct national security threats. Warren argued that the preferential export control change violates U.S. security protocols and creates vulnerability to foreign adversaries, particularly China, given G42’s documented past collaborations with sanctioned technology firm Huawei.

The financial arrangement between the Trump family and the UAE official represents a direct conflict of interest, with Trump personally benefiting from cryptocurrency holdings tied to Tahnoon’s substantial investments. This deal follows the Trump family’s sale of a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial for $500 million to representatives of the same Sheikh, demonstrating a pattern of financial entanglement between Trump’s personal wealth and U.S. technology policy decisions.

The Commerce Department’s action undermines established national security safeguards by providing a foreign nation unrestricted access to sensitive semiconductor technology without standard licensing requirements. This preferential treatment contradicts standard U.S. export control frameworks designed to prevent advanced chip technology from reaching potential adversaries.

The deal exemplifies how Trump uses presidential authority to enrich himself and his family while simultaneously compromising national security. The administration’s decision to grant technological privileges to a foreign investor who directly funded Trump family business interests demonstrates the weaponization of government power for personal financial gain.



(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/trump-uae-investor-license-free-crypto-ai-chips-b3013179.html)

Trump DOJ Subpoenas NY Times Journalists Over Qatar Jet Report

Trump’s Justice Department issued subpoenas to multiple New York Times journalists, compelling their testimony before a federal grand jury in New York City on Wednesday. Federal agents delivered subpoenas to reporters’ homes, citing vague allegations of “alleged violation of federal criminal law,” following the Times’ reporting on security deficiencies in the Qatar-gifted Boeing 747 designated for presidential use, which lacks advanced security features standard to Air Force One.

The New York Times denounced the subpoenas as a “brazen act” designed to intimidate journalists and suppress reporting on matters of public interest. The administration provided no specific explanation for the criminal allegations or the targeting of individual reporters, leaving the stated basis for the grand jury investigation opaque.

This action exemplifies Trump’s documented pattern of weaponizing federal law enforcement against the press. The subpoenas represent a direct assault on First Amendment protections, using the machinery of criminal justice to silence coverage of presidential conduct and security vulnerabilities affecting national assets. The Qatari 747 arrangement itself reflects Trump’s corruption, accepting a foreign government gift to replace Air Force One, raising immediate questions about quid pro quo arrangements and Trump’s financial interests abroad.

The targeting of journalists represents an escalation in Trump’s authoritarian governance. By prosecuting the messengers rather than addressing the substantive security failures they reported, Trump demonstrates contempt for accountability and the constitutional safeguards protecting a free press from executive retaliation.



(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/trump-new-york-times-reporters-qatari-air-force-one-b3013194.html)

Bannon, Epshteyn Ran Extortion Scheme Against Left Leaning Law Firms At Trump Direction

The American Bar Association filed a court motion demanding the White House release communications involving Trump allies Steve Bannon and Boris Epshteyn related to Trump's attacks on law firms. The ABA is suing the Trump administration over what it calls a "law firm intimidation policy," alleging Trump weaponized executive orders to coerce firms into abandoning clients and causes he opposed and to abandon diversity initiatives.

Bannon publicly stated on his podcast that Trump intended to "put you out of business and bankrupt" major Washington law firms targeted by the administration. Epshteyn, Trump's personal lawyer, connected firms that capitulated to White House demands with the Commerce Department for trade deal work, according to reporting. The ABA alleges nine firms pledged nearly $1 billion in free legal services and agreed to abandon what Trump labeled "illegal" diversity recruiting in exchange for avoiding Trump-directed retaliation.

Steve Bannon, a convicted fraudster for his involvement in the 'We Build the Wall' LLC scam, defrauded Trump supporters out of their money under the pretense of supporting border wall construction. In addition to his fraudulent activities, Bannon was the Editor-in-Chief at Breitbart, where he collaborated with Milo Yiannopoulos in rebranding neo-Nazis as the Alt Right, further highlighting his controversial influence.

The Justice Department blocked the ABA from seeking information directly from Epshteyn and blocked his deposition, claiming the requests were unduly burdensome. The administration's obstruction of discovery reveals the extent to which Trump operatives orchestrated the coercion scheme and demonstrates the administration's determination to conceal the mechanics of its intimidation campaign against the legal profession.

Four firms that secured court orders striking down the executive orders against them await appellate review. The discovery dispute exposes behind-the-scenes coordination between Trump and his associates to weaponize the executive branch against law firms seen as hostile to his interests, a direct assault on the independence of the legal profession and separation of powers.

(Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/bannon-epshteyn-info-sought-in-suit-over-trump-war-on-law-firms)

Trump Demands the Supreme Court Give Him a Do-Over

President Donald Trump demanded Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court grant him a rehearing in the birthright citizenship case after the court rejected his executive order striking down citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and visa holders. The 6-3 decision upheld the 14th Amendment’s clear language granting citizenship to all persons born in the United States, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority that the constitutional text is unambiguous. Trump’s demand for immediate rehearing follows his loss in Trump v. Barbara, where four justices signaled they do not believe the Constitution necessarily bestows citizenship on people born in the U.S., exposing the court’s extremist drift.

On Truth Social, Trump falsely claimed that billboards at the southern border advertise “birthright citizenship with deliveries starting at $4000,” asserting this constitutes a crime that invalidates the court’s ruling. Trump’s false characterization contradicts his own administration’s policies: in April 2026, he introduced a “gold card” visa for foreign nationals paying at least $1 million, which explicitly fast-tracks citizenship pathways for wealthy immigrants. This hypocrisy demonstrates Trump weaponizes the courts to circumvent constitutional protections when they conflict with his authoritarian agenda.

Trump’s demand for immediate rehearing and his subsequent pressure on Congress to overturn the 14th Amendment reflect his systematic assault on constitutional limits and independent judicial authority. His attacks on the Supreme Court’s decision, combined with his demands to remake institutions through loyalty purges and judicial remaking, advance his model of permanent executive power unchecked by law or democratic processes.



(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump/trump-demands-the-supreme-court-give-him-a-do-over-asks-for-a-rehearing-immediately/)its and independent judicial authority. His attacks on the Supreme Court’s decision, combined with his demands to remake institutions through loyalty purges and judicial remaking, advance his model of permanent executive power unchecked by law or democratic processes.

Trump Vows F-35 Sale to Turkey, Attacks NATO Spending

President Donald Trump attacked NATO during a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara on Tuesday, claiming the alliance failed to support the United States in an Iran military operation and questioning why America invests trillions defending European nations. Trump stated, "We've invested trillions of dollars in NATO. Why? To protect European countries and others, Canada, etc.," while accusing NATO members of refusing assistance despite his requests.

During the same meeting, Trump declared his willingness to sell F-35 fighter jets to Turkey despite explicit U.S. law prohibiting the sale until Turkey removes its Russian S-400 missile system. Trump told reporters, "We have a better relationship with Turkey, and Turkey has been more loyal than other countries that we think would be loyal. So yeah, it is something certainly we would consider," directly contradicting existing legal restrictions designed to prevent advanced weapons transfers to nations with Russian military equipment.

Trump's statements demonstrate his pattern of subordinating national security policy and legal constraints to personal relationships and transactional loyalty calculations. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated fundamental misunderstandings about F-35 capabilities, falsely claiming the jets are invisible to the naked eye when they are only radar-stealthy, undermining confidence in his judgment on weapons systems decisions.

Trump specifically criticized British Prime Minister Keir Starmer for NATO's lack of support during the Iran operation, personalizing geopolitical strategy rather than addressing structural alliance commitments. His trip to the NATO Summit in Ankara came only after initially refusing to attend, reversing course out of personal regard for Erdoğan, whom he repeatedly referred to as his "friend." The New York Times had reported Trump intended to signal willingness to sell F-35s to Turkey before the meeting occurred.

Trump's willingness to circumvent federal law governing weapons sales, his weaponization of alliance relationships based on personal loyalty, and his dismissal of collective security obligations in favor of transactional deals violate established foreign policy frameworks and subordinate institutional checks to executive preference. His pressure on NATO and simultaneous cultivation of authoritarian-friendly Turkey positions the U.S. strategic interests against democratic alliance structures.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-bashes-nato-debates-selling-fighter-jets-to-loyal-turkey-despite-restrictions/)

Trump Bought 327 Stocks Before Announcing Tariff Pause

President Donald Trump purchased 327 stocks on April 8, 2025, including major holdings in Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and Nvidia, just six days after imposing tariffs that sent markets into decline. The timing raises serious questions about potential insider trading, as Trump had direct knowledge of his own policy decisions before publicly announcing them.

On April 9, Trump posted “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!” on Truth Social and announced a 90-day pause on tariffs the same day. The tech companies in which he had just purchased shares experienced significant gains following the tariff pause announcement, yielding substantial financial returns for Trump’s portfolio.

Democrats have accused Trump of “corruption” and flagged the apparent conflict of interest inherent in a sitting president executing major stock trades immediately before announcing market-moving policy decisions. A White House spokesperson denied any wrongdoing, but the sequence of events mirrors the pattern of self-dealing that has defined Trump’s business and political career.

The disclosure of 327 stock purchases reveals a president using advance knowledge of his own tariff policy to enrich himself before the market-moving announcement. Such conduct exemplifies how Trump blurs the lines between public office and personal financial gain, prioritizing his portfolio over transparent governance.



(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/trump-stock-trades-tariffs-financial-disclosures-b3008696.html)

Trump Flips Out at Gas Companies Over ‘Illegal’ Gouging

President Donald Trump demanded that gasoline retailers immediately slash prices to approximately $2.50 per gallon, accusing them of “totally illegal” price gouging in a Monday Truth Social post. Trump claimed that with crude oil around $68-70 per barrel, significantly lower than the $100+ levels following his Iran war, gas stations were not passing savings to consumers, and warned of “big problems ahead” if retailers did not comply.

The national average gas price stood at $3.86 per gallon as of Monday, down from peaks near $4.50 in recent months. The U.S. and Israel initiated military action against Iran in February, prompting Iran to effectively block the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil transits; a tenuous ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran is currently in effect. Trump previously claimed his administration was conducting a “big investigation” into pricing practices by major oil companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP.

Last week, Chevron CFO Eimear Bonner stated that a lag exists between crude oil price declines and retail pump prices, with reductions expected as market conditions normalize. Trump has repeatedly downplayed the impact of his military actions on energy costs, telling reporters in May that gas prices represented “peanuts” and assuring the public the situation would not persist long.

Trump’s current demand contradicts his prior messaging and mischaracterizes how energy markets function. By framing market dynamics as criminal behavior and threatening retailers with unspecified consequences, he attempts to leverage presidential power to dictate prices without acknowledging his own foreign policy decisions that disrupted global oil supplies and contributed to price volatility.



(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump/trump-flips-out-at-gas-companies-over-totally-illegal-gouging-drop-your-price/)al oil supplies and contributed to price volatility.

Supreme Court Lets Border Agents Strip Green Cards Without Proof

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled 6-3 that border officers may deny reentry to green card holders based on unproven criminal allegations without requiring “clear and convincing evidence” of actual wrongdoing. The decision strips lawful permanent residents of foundational due process protections and empowers border agents to treat returning green card holders as “applicants for admission” vulnerable to detention and removal on mere suspicion, even if convictions occur only after their return or result in acquittal.

The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident since 2007, who was arrested in 2012 for allegedly selling counterfeit goods and briefly left the U.S. Upon return, immigration officers declared him inadmissible based on pending charges. A federal appeals court had previously required “clear and convincing evidence” of an actual crime before changing his status, but the Supreme Court overturned that protection Tuesday. Lau ultimately pleaded guilty in 2013 and was ordered removed, but the ruling’s scope extends far beyond his case.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent condemned the majority for handing the government a “massive blank check” to rewrite immigration law and circumvent statutory protections. She warned that green card holders face potential years in legal limbo or detention even if later acquitted, as the sequencing of charging before conviction or conviction before hearing fundamentally contradicts the plain terms of immigration statutes. The ruling violates the rights of lawful permanent residents who have already cleared security vetting to establish their status.

This decision amplifies the Trump administration’s coordinated assault on legal immigration pathways, executed by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and immigration officials who have transformed agencies into loyalty enforcement arms of the mass deportation campaign. A federal judge recently found that USCIS policies unlawfully discriminated against asylum seekers, green card applicants, and citizenship candidates “solely by the happenstance of their birth,” using purported national security concerns that “mask anti-immigrant sentiments” to justify sweeping removal actions leaving thousands in legal limbo.

Concurrent efforts target additional legal immigration protections, including attempts to strip Temporary Protected Status from over one million immigrants and accelerated citizenship revocation proceedings against naturalized Americans. The administration also unlawfully terminated status for tens of thousands who used a Biden-era appointment app at the U.S.-Mexico border, a determination a federal judge made earlier this year. Combined with Tuesday’s Supreme Court green card ruling, these actions dismantle legal immigration infrastructure while operating under false claims that enforcement targets only the “worst of the worst.”



(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-green-card-immigration-ruling-b3005036.html)

Trump White House Secretly Pressured Board Protecting Federal Workers

The Trump administration orchestrated a covert pressure campaign on the Merit Systems Protection Board, a federal agency designed to shield civil service employees from arbitrary dismissal, resulting in a March ruling that dismantled decades of precedent protecting federal workers. The board's decision accepted the White House's constitutional theory that President Trump possesses sweeping authority to remove officials without due process, effectively erasing civil service protections for federal employees, including immigration judges whose legal duties often conflict with Trump's political objectives. This ruling represents a deliberate dismantling of the most effective mechanism federal workers possess to contest wrongful termination.

The pressure campaign, led by a White House aide dedicated to expediting federal worker terminations, operated through both public and private channels in ways that parallel direct judicial coercion. By compelling the board to abandon established legal standards, the Trump administration weaponized a protective agency into a tool for authoritarian control over the federal workforce. The board's reversal of longstanding doctrine signals the administration's systematic effort to consolidate executive power and eliminate institutional checks on presidential authority.

This decision implements the "unitary executive" theory, a cornerstone of Trump's governing philosophy that concentrates all executive branch power in the presidency, allowing Trump to direct federal prosecutors, immigration judges, and other officials whose professional independence once constrained his political agenda. The administration has already moved to measure HHS employees' performance based on demonstrable loyalty to Trump's policies, illustrating the practical application of this authority. The ruling defangs the primary legal recourse available to federal workers challenging unlawful dismissals.

Though the board's decision does not directly affect pending Supreme Court cases on presidential power over the civil service, its precedent could devastate protections for vast segments of the federal workforce if upheld on appeal. The timing and methodology of this ruling reveal the administration's calculated assault on institutional independence, transforming independent agencies into compliance mechanisms for Trump's consolidation of power.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/28/us/politics/trump-firings-workers-merit-systems-protection-board.html)

DOJ Defies Judge’s Oath Demand on Trump Weaponization Fund

The Justice Department defied a federal judge’s order on Friday by refusing to swear under oath that Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” is dead. Judge Leonie Brinkema had given the administration a seven-day deadline to declare, under penalty of perjury, that the fund would not proceed. Instead, DOJ attorneys claimed the oath requirement violated “separation of powers,” rejecting the judge’s explicit demand.

The fund, announced in May by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche following a Trump-IRS settlement, was designed to compensate individuals claiming “weaponization and lawfare” by the federal government. Lawmakers and watchdogs immediately flagged that the $1.776 billion would likely flow to Trump’s political allies and supporters, with no genuine safeguards against partisan abuse. After public backlash, Blanche told House lawmakers in June the fund was “not moving forward, ever,” yet the administration has continued to dodge court accountability through written oath.

Democracy Forward, representing plaintiffs challenging the fund, characterized the DOJ’s filing as proof of evasion. “It is telling that even after the federal court gave them a week, the Acting Attorney General and other senior administration officials continue to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of the organization. The DOJ’s refusal to commit in writing contradicts its public assurances and signals the fund’s legal status remains unresolved despite official denials.

DOJ counsel Andrew Block argued that prior statements by administration officials, made “against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity,” should satisfy the court without formal sworn declarations. However, his assertion that penalties alone substitute for testimony under oath undercuts the judicial authority to enforce compliance and verify executive accountability. Trump previously attacked media coverage of his abandoned anti-weaponization fund during an Oval Office press session, indicating the administration’s sensitivity to scrutiny of the scheme.

Federal courts were closed Friday for Juneteenth, with Judge Brinkema unlikely to respond before Monday. The administration’s defiance of the judge’s direct order exemplifies Trump’s broader pattern of disregarding judicial oversight and refusing transparent accountability for executive action, particularly regarding funds that would have redistributed billions toward his political base.



(Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/5932296-doj-snubs-judge-weaponization-fund/?fbclid=IwdGRleASjHeNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe0RHlZAtCTd-K1VzzDlsNgkPiPV2ofZ6eegFe9bcVc_HCWwpiOljhMudJL5w_aem_qnM_3Nm8oGzpkfnt_vuGDw)

1 2 3 4 … 28