Category: Attack the Judiciary

Trump Claims He’s Entitled to Illegal Third Term

President Donald Trump declared Friday that he is “entitled” to an unconstitutional third term, stating at a Texas port event, “Maybe we do one more term…we are entitled to it.” This assertion follows his State of the Union address Tuesday, where he repeated his false claim that Democrats stole the 2020 election and characterized a third term as rightfully his, contradicting the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms.

Trump has repeatedly alluded to extending his presidency beyond constitutional limits, admiring authoritarian leaders like Chinese President Xi Jinping, who eliminated term limits in 2018. Republican allies including Senator Lindsey Graham and convicted fraudster Steve Bannon, whom Trump pardoned, have publicly backed a third term for Trump’s administration. A constitutional amendment enabling a third term remains impossible by 2028, forcing Trump and his allies to pursue alternative strategies centered on voter suppression.

Right-wing activists are drafting an executive order granting the president “extraordinary power over voting,” according to reporting by The Washington Post. The draft order, published by Democracy Dockets in April 2025, contains numerous errors and falsely cites Chinese election interference as justification, despite the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluding no such interference occurred. National security expert Marc Polymeropoulos characterized the draft order as “authoritarian.”

The effort to suppress voting ahead of the 2026 midterm elections demonstrates Trump’s systematic abuse of power to manipulate electoral outcomes rather than pursue legitimate constitutional amendments. Trump’s cabinet meetings have showcased alarming acceptance of authoritarian governance, while banners displaying Trump’s image on federal buildings signal his control over government institutions. These actions construct the infrastructure for permanent authoritarian rule.

(Source: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2675435238/)

Trump Escalates Global Tariffs to 15% After Court

Donald Trump announced a 15% global tariff effective immediately on Saturday via Truth Social, escalating from the 10% levy he imposed Friday after the Supreme Court struck down his reciprocal tariff policy. Trump claimed the higher rate was “fully allowed, and legally tested,” attacking the court’s decision as “ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American” while asserting countries have been “ripping off” the United States for decades.

The British Chambers of Commerce condemned the increase as damaging to UK businesses, warning that the additional 5% tariff on most British exports would harm trade, US consumers, and global economic growth. William Bain, head of trade policy at the BCC, stated the announcement proved their fears that Trump’s backup plan would be worse than his initial proposal and called for businesses to receive “clarity and certainty” rather than escalating tariffs.

Britain had negotiated the lowest initial rate of 10% under a deal between Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Trump, with carve-outs protecting steel, automobiles, and pharmaceuticals. The UK government indicated it expected these preferential arrangements to remain intact under the new 15% framework, though officials acknowledged uncertainty about the tariff’s full implications for British trade.

Trump bypassed Congress by signing an executive order Friday invoking emergency powers after the Supreme Court overturned his reciprocal tariffs policy, allowing him to unilaterally increase import taxes. His escalation to 15% followed his public attacks on Supreme Court justices as “unpatriotic and disloyal” for blocking his previous tariff authority.

(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/president-donald-trump-keir-starmer-government-uk-government-b2925023.html)

Trump Praises Kavanaugh as Hero After Tariff Ruling Loss

President Donald Trump praised Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as his “new hero” on Saturday morning, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, after the Court voted 6-3 to strike down his emergency tariff authority on Friday. The decision included votes against Trump from Chief Justice John Roberts and two Trump-appointed justices, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, alongside the three Democratic-appointed justices. Trump’s public embrace of the three dissenters revealed his deliberate strategy to reward judicial loyalty and punish perceived disloyalty.

On Friday evening, Trump responded to the tariff ruling by attacking the majority justices, claiming their decision was “ridiculous” and that the justices who voted against him “should be ashamed of themselves.” He specifically targeted his own appointees Gorsuch and Barrett, claiming they violated an implicit obligation by ruling against him and complaining that “this never seems to happen with Democrats,” who he alleged vote as a bloc in their own interest regardless of the case merits.

Trump’s escalating posts throughout Friday night revealed his transactional view of judicial appointments. He complained that he did not appoint Chief Justice Roberts, blaming Roberts for allowing “foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years to continue to do so.” His final evening post urged Republicans to “Unite, stick together, and WIN,” framing judicial independence as party disloyalty rather than constitutional obligation.

By Saturday morning, Trump shifted to praising the three justices who sided with him, declaring Kavanaugh his “new hero” and asserting without evidence that all three dissenters wanted to “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.” This pattern of public reward and punishment for judicial decisions directly contradicts the principle of an independent judiciary, positioning judges as political operatives accountable to the executive.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-wakes-up-blurting-praise-for-my-new-hero-and-its-about-his-devastating-court-loss/)

Trump Imposes 10% Global Tariff After Supreme Court

President Donald Trump announced a blanket 10% tariff on all countries effective immediately after the Supreme Court struck down his reciprocal tariffs policy on Friday. Trump claimed the court “has been swayed by foreign interests” and stated he signed the order from the Oval Office, asserting the decision actually affirmed his ability to impose tariffs under different statutory authorities including Section 232 and Section 301.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a 1977 law did not grant Trump power to impose tariffs without Congressional approval, delivering a major blow to his economic agenda. However, Trump doubled down by invoking alternative tariff statutes he claims remain “fully allowed,” stating the new 10% global tariff would be implemented under Section 122 and would remain in place for approximately five months while his administration conducts investigations to determine additional tariffs on specific countries.

The UK received the lowest tariff rate of 10% under Trump’s previous reciprocal scheme, and a deal negotiated by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer included carve-outs for British steel and car manufacturers. British officials stated they expect the UK’s “privileged trading position with the US” to continue, though the Supreme Court decision raises uncertainty about whether existing preferential trade agreements will remain valid, as Trump indicated some negotiated deals will no longer stand while others will be replaced.

Trump stated the US has collected more than 133 billion dollars since imposing tariffs but now faces potential refund obligations to importers following the court ruling. Trump has previously used tariff threats as leverage against world leaders, demonstrating his willingness to weaponize trade policy for personal negotiating advantage.

British business groups criticized the uncertainty created by the ruling. The British Chambers of Commerce warned the decision did little to “clear the murky waters for business” and noted Trump could reimpose tariffs using alternative legislation, while campaign group Best for Britain characterized Trump’s approach as demonstrating the instability of conducting trade deals with his administration.

(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/oval-office-truth-social-president-keir-starmer-b2924786.html)

Trump Attacks Supreme Court as Disloyal After Tariff Ruling

President Donald Trump attacked the Supreme Court on February 20, 2026, after the justices ruled 6-3 that he exceeded his tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump called certain court members “unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution” and accused them of being “swayed by foreign interests,” while praising the three dissenting justices for their “strength, wisdom, and love of our country.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the majority in holding that the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress, not the executive branch. Trump dismissed this constitutional constraint, declaring “We have alternatives” and immediately announcing a 10 percent additional tariff on top of existing penalties. According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump told state governors the ruling was a “disgrace,” and CNN reported he complained about “these fucking courts” while venting to lawmakers.

Trump’s public fury followed days of pressure on the Court. On Thursday before the decision, he proclaimed confidence in a favorable ruling and warned without tariffs “everybody would be bankrupt, the whole country would be bankrupt.” He previously posted on Truth Social “WE’RE SCREWED” if the Court ruled against him, and in August threatened a second Great Depression should tariffs face judicial rejection.

Trump has also threatened Republican members of Congress with primary challenges for opposing his tariff policies, demonstrating his pattern of coercing political actors into compliance. His tariff regime has created measurable economic damage, with the Commerce Department releasing figures on the same day showing American GDP growth has slowed dramatically under Trump’s pressure.

Trump’s defiance of the Court’s constitutional ruling exemplifies his broader rejection of institutional checks on executive power. Rather than accept judicial review, he announced plans to circumvent the decision through executive orders while attacking the justices themselves, prioritizing personal economic control over constitutional limits.

(Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-bashes-supreme-court-disloyal-tariff-ruling-1235520144/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAQF5bVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEebESzDXzNXLIfTAEMaNsCfb7AHP7X2y0UXcNlGitQe-I_xHq7N77wdf9GjdU_aem_O7h_sMBna5w8I4qzOOn_SA&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook)

Federal Prosecutors Subpoena Minnesota Democrats on Immigration

Federal prosecutors issued subpoenas on Tuesday to at least five Minnesota Democratic officials, including Governor Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, State Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty. The subpoenas demanded documents related to their policies on immigration enforcement and represent an expansion of the Department of Justice investigation into their response to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations in the state.

The investigation centers on whether elected officials in Minnesota conspired to impede federal immigration agents who have been deployed to the state since last month. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused Frey and Walz of “encouraging violence against law enforcement” and referred to their actions as “terrorism,” though there is no evidence either man incited violence or engaged in terrorist activity. The subpoenas do not cite a specific criminal statute, but prosecutors are examining the officials’ public statements and conduct regarding the federal crackdown.

The investigation follows the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good, an unarmed mother of three, by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis this month. The shooting triggered sustained protests against federal agents in the city, prompting Frey to publicly demand that agents leave and Walz to criticize their conduct. The Justice Department has vowed to arrest anyone impeding the agents’ mission.

The inquiry into the Minnesota officials’ speech and conduct targeting federal immigration enforcement directly examines political expression protected by the First Amendment. The investigation’s expansion to include state and county prosecutors suggests the Trump administration intends to use federal law enforcement to punish Democratic officials for criticizing immigration operations. The Department of Justice has previously initiated investigations into Walz and Frey regarding allegations they conspired to impede Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations through public statements.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/20/us/politics/subpoena-minnesota-democrats-immigration.html)

Trump Appeals Judge’s Ban on ICE Retaliation Against Protesters

President Trump’s administration appealed a federal court order issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez that restricts Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from retaliating against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis. The order prohibits federal agents from arresting protesters engaged in peaceful demonstration, using crowd-dispersal weapons like pepper spray, or detaining drivers without reasonable suspicion of obstruction. The appeal was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, with the administration seeking relief from the Eighth Circuit, a panel dominated by Republican-appointed judges.

Judge Menendez, a Biden appointee, issued the protective order following escalating protests over ICE operations in the city and multiple incidents in which federal agents killed or seriously injured people. The ruling specifically addressed the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, who was shot by a federal agent while attempting to drive around agents attempting to box in her vehicle. The order explicitly bars agents from retaliating against persons observing or documenting federal operations designated “Operation Metro Surge.”

Trump responded to the court order with a False statement on Truth Social, praising Menendez as a “highly respected judge” while simultaneously misrepresenting her ruling by claiming she had “declined to block ICE operations.” In reality, the judge imposed significant restrictions on federal agent conduct, directly contradicting Trump’s characterization. This occurred one day after Trump claimed Menendez had delayed her decision to allow the Justice Department time to respond, framing her judicial independence as a favor to his administration.

The appeal reflects the Trump administration’s resistance to judicial oversight of federal law enforcement tactics during immigration enforcement operations. By appealing to the Eighth Circuit, Trump’s Justice Department seeks to overturn protections for peaceful protesters that federal courts determined were necessary following documented harm. The move demonstrates the administration’s pattern of challenging state and local criticism of ICE operations, including investigating state officials who have publicly opposed the deployment.

(Source: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2674908994/)

Trump Halts Federal Funding to States Harboring Sanctuary

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that beginning February 1, he will withhold federal funding from states that contain local governments limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Trump made the declaration during a speech at the Detroit Economic Club, stating that sanctuary jurisdictions “protect criminals at the expense of American citizens” and that the administration would cease payments to “anybody that supports sanctuary cities.” When pressed by reporters on which funding programs would be affected, Trump declined specifics, saying only “You’ll see. It’ll be significant.”

This represents an expansion of Trump’s previous threats, which targeted sanctuary cities directly rather than entire states housing them. The Justice Department published a list identifying roughly three dozen states, cities, and counties as sanctuary jurisdictions—a list dominated by Democratic-controlled areas including California, Connecticut, New York, Boston, and Cook County, Illinois. No strict legal definition of “sanctuary city” exists, though the term generally refers to jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Courts have blocked Trump’s funding cutoff attempts twice before. In 2017, during his first term, federal judges rejected similar efforts. Last year, a California-based federal judge struck down an executive order directing federal officials to withhold money from sanctuary jurisdictions, despite government arguments that it was premature to halt the plan when no concrete action had been taken. The administration has already begun targeting specific states through other agencies, with the Department of Health and Human Services halting childcare subsidies to five Democratic-led states over unspecified fraud allegations—a decision a court has placed on hold.

The Trump administration is simultaneously executing broader funding freezes across multiple programs. The Justice Department’s sanctuary cities working group lost all members amid Trump pressure, and the Department of Agriculture has threatened to reduce administrative funds for states refusing to provide Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program data. Minnesota faces particularly aggressive action, including a threat to withhold $515 million quarterly—equivalent to one-fourth of federal Medicaid funding—for fourteen programs labeled “high risk” after the state rejected the administration’s corrective action plan.

Border Patrol operations continue under Trump’s aggressive immigration policies, with the administration weaponizing federal agencies to coerce compliance from state and local governments. State officials are mounting legal challenges to these actions, though the cumulative effect of simultaneous funding threats across healthcare, nutrition assistance, and childcare programs creates immediate pressure on Democratic-controlled jurisdictions.

(Source: https://abc7.com/post/trump-threatens-halt-federal-money-next-month-sanctuary-cities-states/18398676/)

Donald Trump Erupts Against Supreme Court

Donald Trump has publicly erupted against the Supreme Court as it deliberates his authority to impose tariffs. He expressed his frustration on his social media platform, Truth Social, questioning why he, as president, can enact measures as drastic as stopping all trade with a foreign nation but cannot impose tariffs for national security. This startling assertion reflects his misunderstanding of the foundational principles underpinning U.S. governance.

The Supreme Court recently began hearing arguments challenging Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify his tariffs, prompting skepticism among the justices about the legality of his claims. This critical judicial review suggests a growing concern regarding Trump’s interpretation of executive power and trade regulation, leading to increased public speculation about the possible outcomes.

Trump’s panicked response indicates significant anxiety over the potential judicial ruling against his tariff policy, which he has boasted is beneficial for American business. His erratic declarations imply that he views tariffs as essential for national economic health, despite the legal challenges they pose. This reflects his tendency to conflate policy success with personal legacy, often disregarding established legal frameworks.

In a fit of rage, Trump lamented that other nations can impose tariffs on the U.S. but not vice versa, suggesting a perceived bias in the judicial system. His failed logic demonstrates his ability to manipulate facts to mount a defense, even as the legal grounds for his actions remain dubious. The justices’ skepticism could lead to a decisive ruling undermining his administration’s tariff policies.

As the court weighs its options, Trump’s volatility raises questions about the implications of his policies. The outcome could potentially reshape his economic agenda and alter the trajectory of U.S. foreign trade relations. The anxious rhetoric Trump uses reflects an increasingly authoritarian grip on power, undermining the established checks and balances intended to preserve American democracy.

DOJ Places Two Prosecutors on Leave After Jan. 6 Memo Filing

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has placed two federal prosecutors, Carlos A. Valdivia and Samuel White, on administrative leave shortly after they submitted a sentencing memo for Taylor Taranto, a pardoned Jan. 6 rioter. Taranto, a Washington state resident, was convicted of illegal firearm possession and making bomb threats while livestreaming. In addition to the legal issues stemming from his recent convictions, the prosecutors’ sentencing memo included a description of Taranto’s participation in the January 6 Capitol riot, which has led to their suspension.

Taranto was convicted in May for carrying two firearms and possessing ammunition unlawfully. In June 2023, he livestreamed threats claiming to be working on a detonator with intentions to detonate a car bomb. His arrest revealed the bomb threat was a hoax but uncovered further serious offenses, including the possession of a machete and multiple firearms. Prosecutors recommended a 27-month sentence followed by supervised release.

In their sentencing memorandum, the prosecutors characterized the riot as a mob attack on the U.S. Capitol while Congress was certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. The memo emphasized Taranto’s involvement in the riot, claiming it was a “flatly accurate description” of the events, which has since been highlighted by legal analysts.

Following the submission of the memo, both Valdivia and White were locked out of their governmental devices and informed of their administrative leave, which became effective after the conclusion of a government shutdown. While it remains unclear why the prosecutors were put on leave, their action aligns with a pattern of the DOJ taking significant measures regarding personnel connected to Jan. 6 cases during the Trump presidency.

Previous reports indicate that the Trump administration has dismissed various prosecutors involved with January 6-related investigations, raising questions regarding the potential political motivations behind such personnel decisions. The DOJ has not commented on this recent action or provided any rationale for placing the two prosecutors on leave.

1 2 3 … 9