Category: Defy Judiciary

Trump administration openly defying the court

Trump Vows Executive Order Voter ID Mandate Bypassing Congress

President Donald Trump announced Friday via social media that he would issue an executive order mandating voter identification for midterm elections if Congress does not pass legislation to that effect. Trump stated, “There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!” and claimed there are “legal reasons” supporting such an order, though he provided no specifics. The House passed the SAVE America Act on Wednesday with unanimous Republican support, requiring states to obtain documentary proof of citizenship before voter registration and imposing new mail-in ballot restrictions.

Legal experts directly contradicted Trump’s authority to unilaterally alter election procedures. Stanford law professor Nate Persily stated the Constitution explicitly grants election regulation power to state legislatures, not the president, and that “the Constitution is clear on this.” Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, said any executive order requiring states to comply with Trump’s voter ID mandate would “similarly be found to be unconstitutional” based on a federal judge’s January ruling that permanently blocked a prior Trump executive order attempting to alter voting laws. Trump issued that sweeping order in March 2025 seeking to impose mail-in ballot deadlines and citizenship proof requirements, which a federal court determined exceeded presidential authority.

The SAVE America Act now faces a Senate vote requiring 60 votes to succeed—an unlikely threshold given Democratic opposition and Republican defections. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska became the first Republican senator to oppose the bill, noting that GOP colleagues claimed in 2021 to oppose federal election mandates imposed on states. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer characterized the legislation as imposing “Jim Crow type laws to the entire country” and declared it “dead on arrival in the Senate.” Democrats argue voter ID laws are designed to disenfranchise voters, emphasizing that voting by noncitizens is already illegal and exceedingly rare.

Persily connected Trump’s voter ID push to broader attempts to federalize election administration, including the FBI’s recent seizure of ballots and voter records from Fulton County, Georgia—a seizure Trump’s continued false claims about the 2020 election have motivated. Persily stated Trump’s push represents a coordinated effort: “It’s not an isolated tweet here, right? There’s a lot that’s going on. So you’ve got the action in the legislature, in Congress, you’ve got these, the earlier executive order, you have the seizing of the ballots and other materials from Fulton County, right? And so it’s all of a piece with the desire to have greater federal oversight of elections.”

Trump’s pattern of attempting to circumvent constitutional limits on presidential power reflects his stated goal to federalize election administration from states he deems incapable of running elections honestly, specifically targeting Democratic-led jurisdictions. His explicit threat to impose voter ID requirements “whether approved by Congress or not” contradicts the constitutional separation of powers and follows his documented history of pressuring state officials to overturn legitimate election results.

(Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/trump-vows-voter-id-requirements-midterms-rcna259018)

Trump Demands Jail for Noem Critics, Attacks Protest ‘Scam’

President Donald Trump defended Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Friday via Truth Social, attacking protesters and Democrats as “Radical Left Lunatics” and “Insurrectionists” while demanding they be imprisoned. Trump claimed Noem is being targeted “because she is a woman” and credited her with fixing “the Border disaster” he inherited, asserting the murder rate reached a 125-year low under his administration.

Trump characterized protests in Minnesota and major cities as a “SCAM” designed to obscure what he labeled “CRIMINAL ACTS of theft and insurrection” by Democrats. He accused Democrats of “stealing Billions of Dollars from Minnesota, and other Cities and States” and instructed Republicans not to be “pushed around” by what he termed aggressive protest manipulation.

The president reiterated his campaign platform of “Strong Borders, and Law and Order” and separately praised Border Czar Tom Homan, whom Trump appointed this week to oversee the immigration enforcement crackdown in Minnesota. The operation has deployed approximately 2,100 federal agents to the Minneapolis area in what officials characterize as the largest immigration enforcement operation ever conducted.

Trump’s remarks come amid DOJ investigations into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey over allegations they conspired to impede Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations through public statements. Trump’s invocation of imprisonment for political opponents and protesters aligns with his broader pattern of weaponizing federal authority against critics.

The late-night posts demonstrate Trump’s willingness to criminalize dissent and attribute federal policy failures to Democratic sabotage while absolving his administration of responsibility for enforcement outcomes.

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

FBI Agent Resigns as DOJ Blocks Renee Good Shooting Probe

FBI supervisor Tracee Mergen resigned from the Minneapolis field office after Washington leadership pressured her to abandon a civil rights investigation into ICE officer Jonathan Ross, who fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Good on January 7. Such inquiries are standard procedure following officer-involved shootings. The Trump administration weaponized the Justice Department by instead investigating Good and her partner for alleged ties to left-wing protest groups, prompting at least six senior prosecutors in the Minneapolis U.S. attorney’s office to resign in protest.

Senior Justice Department officials have stated there are no plans to investigate whether Ross used excessive force when he fired multiple shots at the unarmed mother sitting in her vehicle. Federal investigators refused to cooperate with state and local Minnesota prosecutors seeking to open their own inquiry into the shooting. The New York Times video analysis found no evidence supporting Trump administration officials’ claims that Good attempted to ram Ross with her Honda Pilot, yet they publicly labeled her a “domestic terrorist.”

The Justice Department simultaneously opened investigations into Minnesota Democratic elected officials, including Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, scrutinizing whether they conspired to obstruct Trump’s immigration enforcement through public statements. Subpoenas were issued this week to their offices and St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her’s office as part of this effort.

The department prosecuted three protesters—Nekima Levy-Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, and William Kelly—charging them with conspiracy for interrupting a church service to protest a pastor’s apparent ICE work, alleging they “intimidated, harassed, oppressed and terrorized the parishioners.” Federal judges denied prosecutors’ requests to detain the three while awaiting trial.

These actions reflect a coordinated strategy by the Trump administration’s Justice Department to shield federal immigration enforcement from oversight, punish Democratic critics of ICE operations, and criminalize protest activity opposing deportation policies, while Trump falsely claimed protesters were paid agitators.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/23/us/fbi-agent-ice-shooting-renee-good.html)

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 Says Elections Unnecessary After Accomplishments

President Donald Trump stated in a Reuters interview published Thursday that “we shouldn’t even have an election,” expressing frustration over the possibility that Republicans could lose control of the House or Senate in the 2026 midterm elections. Trump acknowledged that a president’s party typically experiences midterm losses following a presidential victory, framing this as a “deep psychological thing,” but argued his administration had accomplished enough that elections should not occur.

Trump dismissed a Reuters/Ipsos poll showing only 4% of Americans support his plan to absorb Greenland as “fake,” insisting he follows his own instincts rather than public opinion on major policy decisions. He stated, “A lot of times, you can’t convince a voter. You have to just do what’s right,” claiming that controversial actions he has taken, including a criminal probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, ultimately proved correct when results materialized.

During the same interview, Trump addressed Iran, where authorities have killed thousands of demonstrators. He previously pledged “help” to anti-government protesters but became noncommittal when discussing future administration plans, telling Reuters: “We have to play it day by day.” Trump’s equivocation drew backlash from members of his own party after he suggested the killing was “stopping.”

The president’s assertion that elections should not occur reflects a pattern of rejecting democratic constraints, consistent with administration positions claiming presidential authority above legal and constitutional limits. His dismissal of public opinion on major foreign policy decisions and rejection of electoral processes demonstrates a disregard for democratic principles and popular consent governing authority.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-tells-reuters-we-shouldnt-even-have-an-election-ahead-of-midterms/)

Trump Illegally Cuts Funding to Blue States

President Donald Trump announced February 1 as the date he will begin withholding all federal funding from sanctuary cities and states with sanctuary jurisdictions, claiming they “protect criminals at the expense of American citizens.” The Bay Area faces potential losses in the billions of dollars that fund emergency management, child support, and human services; San Francisco alone could lose nearly $1 billion annually, representing 6% of its general fund based on fiscal year 2025 figures.

California operates as a sanctuary state by law, with state and local law enforcement generally limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents. State leaders argue the federal government lacks authority to compel local officers to enforce federal immigration law. Trump’s previous threats to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions have already been declared unlawful by courts during both his first and second terms.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated he will file suit immediately if the cuts proceed, declaring “We will go to court within seconds, and we will win if he does this, it’s already proven unlawful.” Bonta expressed anger at what he characterized as Trump’s attack on California’s residents, state, and values, while San Francisco and other cities have successfully litigated this identical issue in prior litigation.

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee countered that the city’s sanctuary policies enable residents to report crimes and access services without fear, and stated no federal threats would alter that commitment. The White House provided no specific executive order or actionable directive when asked about the funding mechanism, instead referring only to Trump’s public remarks made at a Detroit economic club event.

(Source: https://abc7news.com/post/bay-area-could-lose-billions-trump-cuts-funding-sanctuary-cities-attorney-general-rob-bonta-says-unlawful/18401281/?ex_cid=TA_KGO_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook)

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/)

Trump DOJ Memo Claims President Above International Law

A classified 20-30 page Justice Department legal opinion presented to Congress on Tuesday argues that President Trump faced no constitutional or international legal constraints when he ordered the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The Office of Legal Counsel memo asserts Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief under Article II of the Constitution permitted the operation, codenamed Absolute Resolve, without prior congressional approval.

The opinion builds directly on a 1989 legal memo authored by William Barr, Trump’s current Attorney General, which claimed presidents possess “inherent constitutional authority” to order law enforcement operations in foreign countries even when doing so violates international law. The new memo treats that premise as settled and argues the Maduro operation did not constitute war in the constitutional sense, therefore bypassing the War Powers Act requirement for congressional authorization. An unclassified version released simultaneously states that international law “does not restrict the president as a matter of domestic law” regarding rendition operations.

The memo conceded that Trump personally justified the operation by stating control of Venezuelan oil reserves was the objective, though the administration maintains it was solely a law enforcement action targeting Maduro as the leader of a narco-trafficking organization. A White House official stated the operation was lawful and that “the Department of Justice routinely executes federal arrest warrants abroad,” framing the military-backed seizure as standard law enforcement practice.

Democratic lawmakers directly contradicted this characterization, arguing that removing a foreign head of state by military force constitutes an act of war regardless of law enforcement justifications. The administration has also used success in the Maduro operation to embolden plans for military actions against other targets, with officials accelerating preparations that extend beyond Venezuela.

The memo stipulated that any military support must remain proportional to the law enforcement objective and acknowledged that military commanders had not assessed Maduro’s actions as a direct or imminent threat to U.S. forces. Nevertheless, the opinion concluded the likelihood of armed resistance justified deploying U.S. military assets. The opinion was provided to lawmakers after the operation had already been executed, establishing legal justification retroactively rather than constraining executive action beforehand.

(Source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/politics/memo-maduro-capture-olc)

Trump’s DOJ Rejects Judge’s Order in Letitia James Case

The Department of Justice has made headlines by declaring its intent to ignore a federal judge’s order regarding the criminal case against New York Attorney General Letitia James. This rare and dubious move comes amid accusations of vindictive prosecution stemming from Trump’s administration. Attorney Roger Keller stated that the Justice Department would not comply with the order to disclose discovery materials related to the allegations against James, asserting that the law does not permit such discovery until the defendant shows significant evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.

This unprecedented stance has alarmed legal experts, who consider it highly unusual for a government entity to directly challenge a judge’s order. A prominent legal analyst remarked on social media how the DOJ’s decision deviates from normal judicial procedures, which typically involve a request for the judge to reconsider the order instead. Such a blatant refusal to follow judicial directives reflects the ongoing pattern of lawlessness under Trump’s leadership.

Trump’s influence within the Justice Department appears to undermine the very foundations of the legal system. The recent appointment of Lindsey Halligan as acting U.S. attorney has drawn scrutiny, with many questioning the legality of her position. The DOJ’s proactive endorsement of her appointment highlights the lengths to which the agency is willing to go to protect Trump’s interests, even if it means risking judicial integrity.

The implications of this power struggle extend far beyond the immediate case against Letitia James. This incident signals a troubling tendency within the Trump administration to prioritize loyalty and personal vendettas over legal norms and accountability. The erosion of trust in the Justice Department as an impartial body poses a significant threat to democratic principles and the rule of law.

As the situation develops, it remains to be seen how it will impact ongoing legal battles involving Trump and his associates. The refusal to comply with a judicial order raises serious questions about the future of legal procedures under an administration known for its controversial approaches to governance. This moment serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of justice in the face of authoritarian ambitions.

1 2