Category: Bullying

Donald Trump’s rhetorical style is straight out of middle school. He’s like an eighth-grade girl.

Trump Makes More Legal Threats Against CBS

Former President Donald Trump has escalated his longstanding feud with CBS News by demanding that the network’s iconic program, 60 Minutes, be taken off the air. Claiming he’s been characterized in a “derogatory and defamatory way,” Trump stated via Truth Social that he found the show’s recent coverage of Ukraine and Greenland to be “highly inaccurate.” This public outburst continues his trend of dismissing media criticism as biased and fraudulent, particularly as he faces legal challenges against CBS related to alleged election interference.

Trump’s tirade isn’t just a random venting of frustration; it reflects a pattern of hostility towards media organizations that dare to challenge him. In the past year, he has sued CBS for a staggering $20 billion, accusing it of “partisan and unlawful acts” stemming from a 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. His lawyers allege that CBS manipulated the interview to mislead voters, but the network has consistently rebuffed these claims, defending its journalistic integrity and the editing process as standard practice.

In a particularly revealing moment, Trump lambasted CBS’s handling of Harris’s responses during the interview. He asserted that the network unfairly edited her answers to present her in a more favorable light, something CBS denies, citing unaltered transcripts to validate their reporting. This constant back-and-forth underscores Trump’s attempts to control the narrative surrounding his actions and the media portrayal of his presidency.

The former president’s animosity towards the press has further manifested in actions like banning reporters from the Associated Press from attending White House briefings over trivial disagreements about terminology. This anti-press agenda aligns with broader Republican strategies that seek to undermine journalistic scrutiny and weaken constitutional protections for free speech, fueling a dangerous trend toward media hostility in American politics.

Negotiations between Trump and CBS, including mediation efforts, are reportedly in progress to resolve their disputes. However, Trump’s persistent public attacks on the media raise serious questions about his respect for democratic norms and the role of the press in holding leaders accountable. Such ongoing conflicts not only jeopardize journalistic integrity but also threaten to stifle dissent and critical inquiry, cornerstones of a healthy democracy.

(h/t: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cbs-60-minutes-off-air-2059351?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR6hRbT-cWeoQPxTL_39rlIFAKIaOC9x9O-aghv20Zzn_kiqCasvXZVsl19eBA_aem_f948vZMBJhf47H5u549sCA#Echobox=1744620974)

Trump Administration Abandons Deportee Responsibility, Shifts Blame to El Salvador’s President Bukele

The Trump administration has controversially shifted the responsibility of a mistakenly deported Maryland resident, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele. While Trump claimed Abrego Garcia is “alive and secure” in a terrorism confinement center in El Salvador, he simultaneously deflected accountability, stating that the future of those deported now lies solely with Bukele’s government.

Federal judge Paula Xinis has demanded updates on the administration’s actions to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return after the Supreme Court instructed that he should be brought back to the U.S. Despite Trump’s assurance that he would comply with court orders, his administration’s actions reveal a troubling lack of urgency, as no clear steps have been defined to ensure Abrego Garcia’s repatriation.

In a striking move, the administration, while recognizing that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was an error, has communicated that diplomatic processes are not as swift as the courts’ demands. Trump’s sarcasm about referring to those deported as “enemy aliens” indicates an alarming disregard for the human rights and circumstances of these individuals, treating them as mere political pawns.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt reinforced the administration’s reluctance to act decisively, clarifying that while the court mandated the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, their interpretation suggests a lesser obligation. Trump appears content to maintain the status quo, leveraging the situation for his own political narratives while leaving vulnerable individuals at the mercy of foreign authorities.

This entire episode underlines the broader pattern of negligence exhibited by the Trump administration towards the judicial system and the treatment of migrants. By abdicating responsibility and passing the buck to a foreign leader, Trump demonstrates a disturbing trend of prioritizing political gain over moral and legal obligations towards American citizens.

Trump Secures Major Law Firm Support with Controversial $125 Million Deals

Donald Trump is orchestrating agreements with several major law firms, aiming to secure legal support for his controversial agenda through substantial financial commitments. Reports indicate that four or five unnamed firms are poised to enter deals that would require each to contribute $125 million worth of legal services, a move designed to bolster Trump’s influence since many firms have resisted his previous pressures regarding their representation of government contractors.

In a cabinet meeting, Trump confirmed the impending announcements of these lucrative contracts as he escalates his crackdown on the legal industry that has consistently challenged him. The firms being targeted include some of the most prestigious in the country, such as Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins, which had engaged in discussions with Trump’s advisors. These negotiations come in the wake of Trump’s previous punitive executive orders against firms that opposed him or supported legal inquiries into his conduct.

While the finalization of these deals remains uncertain, Trump’s emphasis on collective agreements rather than individual arrangements represents a strategic shift in how he confronts the legal community. The administration is pushing firms to donate thousands of hours to initiatives, particularly those that align with Trump’s priorities, such as combating antisemitism, while also addressing its diversity hiring practices under scrutiny from the administration.

Trump’s approach has created a high-pressure environment for law firms, many of which feel compelled to comply to avoid potential repercussions. Those who resist could face executive orders impeding their operations, with potential implications for their ability to represent clients. As a result, partnerships with Trump may force firms into a precarious balancing act of navigating both profitability and public perception.

Despite mounting pressure, not all firms are yielding to Trump’s demands. Some, including Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, continue to reject unconstitutional orders, highlighting the contentious legal battles shaping the current landscape. As more firms weigh their options, the outcomes could significantly influence the integrity of legal practices and the rule of law under Trump’s administration while reflecting ongoing tensions with established legal norms.

(h/t: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/trump-law-firms.html)

Bondi attacks judge blocking Trump’s executive order

Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly criticized a federal judge for halting President Donald Trump’s punitive executive order aimed at the Jenner & Block law firm. This controversial order attempted to penalize law firms associated with legal inquiries into Trump’s conduct. Bondi’s memo, co-authored with Russell Vought from the Office of Management and Budget, condemned the judge’s ruling and suggested that executive agencies could choose not to collaborate with the law firm despite the court’s intervention.

The memo initiates a defense of Trump’s power, claiming that the judge has overstepped by interfering in executive branch policies and operations. It contends that the judicial branch does not possess the authority to dictate whom the executive branch should engage with, framing the case as a matter of judicial overreach. The stark tone of the memo marks a notable departure from typical government communications, highlighting the combative atmosphere surrounding Trump’s administration.

In this case, Judge John Bates issued a temporary restraining order following a lawsuit from Jenner & Block, asserting that Trump’s orders violate constitutional norms and impinge upon lawful judicial practice. The judge’s skepticism about the order’s constitutionality signals ongoing legal battles tied to Trump’s attempts to wield power against those he perceives as opponents, often targeting legal entities involved in investigations against him.

Trump has already enforced a series of executive orders limiting law firms’ ability to engage with federal agencies, prompting fears among legal professionals of punitive actions driven by Trump’s vendettas rather than legitimate governance. Some law firms have reportedly capitulated to the threat of retaliation, including Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which established a controversial agreement expected to provide substantial pro bono legal services to the administration.

In light of Trump’s contentious legal strategy and Bondi’s defense of it, the incident underscores the erosion of institutional checks and the normalization of retaliatory governance strategies, casting a shadow on the principles of democratic accountability and rule of law that are supposedly foundational to American governance.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/08/politics/law-firms-blocked-executive-order-bondi-trump/index.html)

Trump Administration Cuts $188 Million in NYC Migrant Shelter Funding Amid Immigration Clash

The Trump administration has canceled $188 million in federal grants that were designated for New York City to shelter migrants. This decision, announced on April 1, 2025, by FEMA, is claimed to reflect a push against what the administration deems illegal immigration. NYC Mayor Eric Adams expressed his resolve to challenge this unlawful move, emphasizing that the funding is critical for supporting vulnerable populations.

Approximately $80 million of the funds had already been withdrawn from the city’s account in February, with this latest action demanding the return of an additional $106 million. FEMA’s acting director, Cameron Hamilton, stated the grants conflict with the priorities of the Trump administration, asserting that many beneficiaries of these services lack legal status.

New York City’s response has been to legally contest the clawback of these funds, as they are essential for sheltering migrants, particularly as the city has faced an overwhelming influx. The administration’s actions have drawn fire from critics, who argue that they ignore the city’s legal obligations and the humanitarian needs of migrants seeking refuge.

The shelters, including space repurposed from the historic Roosevelt Hotel, have faced heavy criticism, particularly from Republicans who claimed they became venues for gang activity. However, the city has countered these allegations as unsubstantiated and stands committed to providing necessary services.

Despite the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration, Mayor Adams has indicated a need for a pragmatic approach and stated, “we’re going to fight for every penny.” This situation exemplifies the ongoing struggle between Democratic city leadership and the Republican federal government’s aggressive immigration policies, putting further pressure on local resources.

DHS Strips Parole Protections from 985,000 Migrants Echoing Trump-Era Tactics

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced the termination of parole protections for approximately 985,000 migrants who utilized the CBP One app to enter the United States during the Biden administration. These individuals had previously been granted the opportunity to seek asylum and work permits through this program, which aimed to streamline the process of entry at U.S. borders.

The DHS claimed this drastic measure was necessary to address what it described as a border crisis exacerbated by the Biden administration’s use of parole authority. In a statement, DHS emphasized that Secretary Kristi Noem has the responsibility to revoke such protections, framing this action as a response to public demand for stricter immigration policies. This becomes another instance of the current administration continuing the harmful and punitive measures towards immigrants reminiscent of the Trump-era policies.

Affected migrants are now receiving emails instructing them to self-deport using the updated version of the CBP app, aptly named “CBP Home,” an echo of Trump’s previous hardline immigration tactics upon taking office. Importantly, those admitted through specific humanitarian programs, such as Uniting for Ukraine or Operation Allies Welcome for Afghan Allies, will not be affected by this policy change.

This latest move follows prior DHS actions that revoked parole for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, impacting over 500,000 individuals. The agency’s intentions to rescind Temporary Protected Status for around 600,000 Venezuelans and an additional 500,000 Haitians are currently under litigation, showcasing a pattern of stripping protections from vulnerable populations.

Moreover, the DHS has signaled its intention to impose fines of up to $5,000 on those who fail to leave the country following deportation orders, further reflecting the hostile and financially burdensome approach the Trump-aligned administration has adopted towards immigrants. This strict enforcement marks a continuation of the unethical immigration policies that prioritize constraining migrants’ rights and liberties over compassion and humanity.

(h/t: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/5237720-trump-immigration-crackdown-dhs-parole-protections-migrants-biden-cbp-one-app-southern-border/amp/)

Elon Musk’s AI Surveillance Targets Anti-Trump Sentiments in Federal Agencies

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is reportedly utilizing artificial intelligence to monitor U.S. federal agency communications, specifically looking for any anti-Trump sentiments, according to multiple sources. This extraordinary surveillance effort raises serious ethical concerns regarding government transparency and the misuse of technology for political purposes.

The sources claim that DOGE employees have been instructed to use the Signal app for communication, which may violate federal record-keeping laws due to its ephemeral messaging feature. Additionally, Musk’s Grok AI chatbot has reportedly been deployed extensively by DOGE to streamline government operations amidst significant staffing reductions and restructuring driven by the Trump administration.

Concerns have been expressed by experts like Kathleen Clark, emphasizing that the use of AI for monitoring such communications could represent an egregious abuse of governmental power aimed at stifling dissent. The monitoring effort takes place within the context of aggressive budget cuts and widespread layoffs, particularly at the Environmental Protection Agency, a target of the Trump administration’s intensity against perceived “anti-Trump” personnel.

Moreover, the lack of transparency surrounding DOGE’s operations has elicited legal challenges from watchdog groups seeking access to documents. With the Trump administration arguing for DOGE’s exemption from public record laws, there are already signs that this newly established body may be operating outside the bounds of accountability.

In summation, DOGE’s activities represent a concerning nexus of surveillance and political loyalty testing, indicative of a broader trend in the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape federal governance. The implications for civic freedom and democratic integrity are profound, as unchecked power continues to threaten the foundation of public service in America.

(h/t: https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/musks-doge-using-ai-snoop-us-federal-workers-sources-say-2025-04-08/)

Trump Evades Accountability Over Pentagon’s ‘Signalgate’ Investigation

During a recent press conference aboard Air Force One, President Donald Trump aggressively dismissed a reporter’s inquiry regarding the Pentagon’s inquiry into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the Signal app for sensitive military communications. The reporter addressed Trump’s responsibility to comment on the ongoing investigation, referred to as “Signalgate,” highlighting the concerning issue at hand.

Trump, seemingly uninterested in the crucial matter, retorted, “Oh, you’re bringing that up again? Don’t bring that up again,” illustrating his tendency to evade accountability and downplay significant issues that reflect the chaotic governance under his administration. Rather than engaging with the subject, Trump redirected the conversation to another unrelated topic.

The investigation, led by Acting Pentagon Inspector General Steven Stebbins, aims to assess whether Hegseth and other Department of Defense personnel adhered to established protocols while utilizing the Signal app to discuss military actions. This investigation is vital given the implications of misusing platforms for confidential military communication.

Adding to the confusion, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recently declared that the inquiry into this incident had been “closed” from their perspective, despite the ongoing nature of the evaluation highlighted by the Inspector General. This contradictory messaging raises concerns about accountability and transparency within the Trump administration.

The incident encapsulates a broader pattern of dismissiveness and neglect towards serious issues, with Trump and his administration repeatedly failing to address the implications of their actions, especially regarding national security and ethical governance. Such blatant dismissal of critical inquiries only exacerbates fears of governmental incompetence and recklessness.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/dont-bring-that-up-again-trump-scolds-reporter-for-asking-question-about-signalgate/)

Trump Mandates Schools Certify Against DEI for Federal Funds

The Trump administration has instituted a new requirement for K-12 schools to certify compliance with federal civil rights laws as a condition for receiving federal funding. This mandate represents a blatant move to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices in educational institutions. Schools have been given just 10 days to sign and return a certification notice sent by the Education Department, highlighting the urgency and severity of this directive.

The administration’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, Craig Trainor, claims that many educational institutions have disregarded their legal responsibilities by employing DEI programs in a manner that allegedly discriminates against certain groups. He stated, “Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right,” framing this new policy as a necessary oversight to protect against what the administration describes as illegal favoritism.

This certification process entails an acknowledgment from school and state leaders that their federal support hinges on adherence to specific legal guidelines outlined by the administration. According to the notification, any DEI practices that could favor one race over another violate federal law and could jeopardize critical funding. Schools that do not comply risk losing their federal financial assistance, including Title I funding, which is crucial for low-income areas, affecting billions in educational support.

Moreover, the Education Department has explicitly threatened legal repercussions for noncompliance, emphasizing that institutions can be held liable under the False Claims Act. This aggressive stance follows a memo issued earlier that declared any school policies differentiating treatment based on race as illegal. The administration continues to maintain that such policies unfairly disadvantage white and Asian American students.

This latest initiative by the Trump administration to undermine DEI policies is part of a broader Republican agenda aimed at dismantling diversity initiatives across various sectors. By wielding federal funding as leverage, the administration seeks to impose its discriminatory beliefs on K-12 education, fundamentally reshaping the American educational landscape in an anti-diversity direction.

(h/t: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/schools-trump-washington-education-department-republican-b2726971.html)

FCC Chair Investigates Disney Over Discriminatory DEI Policies

Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has initiated an investigation into Disney’s diversity and inclusion (DEI) policies, suggesting that potential findings of racial discrimination could jeopardize ABC’s broadcasting license. Carr’s inquiry reflects a broader agenda by the Republican Party to dismantle DEI initiatives across media companies. This move has been characterized as part of a systematic effort to suppress any policies that promote diversity, aligning with the authoritarian tactics seen in other sectors under Donald Trump and his allies.

During a recent Fox News appearance, Carr indicated that evidence might show Disney and ABC involved in discriminatory practices in hiring, particularly focusing on race and gender. He specifically mentioned allegations of race-defined affinity groups and hiring quotas based on demographics. Carr’s assertion embodies the Republican stance on DEI, which has been increasingly scrutinized as a political weapon to impose a punitive narrative against inclusion efforts.

Trump’s influence is evident as Carr noted the FCC’s shift away from promoting DEI as one of its strategic priorities. The incumbent president has been vocal about his opposition to DEI, clearly echoed in Carr’s statements that prioritize compliance with traditional hiring practices over diversity initiatives. This agenda marks a concerted effort to stifle progress on civil rights within media and broadcasting environments, a core element of Trump’s reactionary policy framework.

Importantly, the First Amendment’s protections were highlighted by Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC chair under the previous administration, emphasizing that licenses should not be revoked merely due to political disagreements. Carr’s actions, however, contradict this principle and may signal an era where artistic and journalistic integrity is threatened by political motivations. The potential consequences for ABC could extend beyond just licensure issues and may impact their ability to operate independently without fear of government retaliation.

This developing situation underscores the ongoing battle over civil rights in America, where Trump-backed actors like Carr wield significant influence to mold media narratives under the guise of regulatory oversight. The investigation into Disney and ABC is emblematic of a broader Republican strategy that seeks to control how diversity efforts are perceived and implemented, all in an attempt to stifle voices advocating for equality and inclusion.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-backed-head-of-the-fcc-threatens-abcs-broadcast-license-in-fox-news-interview/)

1 2 3 4 5 … 170