Category: Defy Judiciary

Trump administration openly defying the court

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.

Kari Lake Dismantles Voice of America with 532 Layoffs

Kari Lake, an official from the Trump administration, has laid off over 500 employees from the Voice of America (VOA) and its parent agency in a significant downsizing effort. The U.S. Agency for Global Media announced this “reduction in force” as part of an initiative led by Lake to diminish federal bureaucracy and ostensibly save taxpayer money. Critics argue that this move further demonstrates the administration’s ongoing attack on public media and its commitment to spreading disinformation.

This mass termination comes amidst increasing concerns about authoritarian control over U.S. broadcasting under Trump’s regime. Lake, known for her alignment with Trump’s disinformation tactics, has faced condemnation for undermining the integrity of public media agencies. The ramifications of these layoffs extend beyond the loss of jobs, signaling a potentially severe reduction in independent and factual journalism.

The layoffs were formally announced in a letter from Lake, who downplayed the severity of the cuts by framing them as a necessary action to promote efficiency within the government. However, critics assert that this rationale serves to consolidate power and eliminate dissenting voices that challenge the administration’s narrative.

With Trump’s appointment of Lake and her subsequent actions at VOA, there are legitimate fears about the impact on democratic processes and the public’s right to reliable information. The administration’s pattern of dismantling federal agencies raises alarms over its commitment to transparency, as vital entities that serve public interest are eroded in pursuit of a partisan agenda.

As the fight against disinformation grows more urgent, the implications of Lake’s layoffs at VOA underscore the need for vigilance in protecting media independence. The move reflects broader trends in the Republican agenda to reshape institutions that are fundamental to a functioning democracy, promoting a dangerous precedent that could entrench authoritarian practices in American governance.

(h/t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/08/30/voice-of-america-kari-lake-layoffs/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR4p6WA6ZOKQZ2kF8fapNLNRpX6g3931mVd26PoPMnXzDwasGUf_UHOrTxF73A_aem_IPBr7bJoY9hn0xhhFb9Khw)

Trump Defies Supreme Court AP Excluded from White House Coverage

Despite a federal court ruling mandating equal access for journalists, Donald Trump is deliberately disregarding the First Amendment by excluding the Associated Press (AP) from the White House press pool. On Monday, AP journalists were denied entry to cover a meeting between Trump and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, prompting a statement from the AP demanding their reinstatement according to the court’s injunction.

This ongoing conflict stems from a February 2025 incident where Trump barred the AP from accessing the Oval Office and Air Force One after the agency refused to adopt his controversial renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” The AP subsequently filed a lawsuit, contending that Trump’s actions violated constitutional protections for free press.

The latest denial of access signals an alarming escalation in Trump’s authoritarian tactics to control media narratives. His administration has also displayed a blatant disregard for other court orders, particularly those addressing harsh immigration policies, further undermining the rule of law and contributing to an ongoing constitutional crisis.

Such aggressive attempts to intimidate the press illustrate Trump’s broader objective: to manipulate and suppress independent journalism that does not align with his interests. This troubling behavior raises serious concerns about the future of free speech and press freedom in America.

Unless there are consequences for these constitutional violations, Trump’s actions represent a significant threat to democratic principles, highlighting the urgent need for accountability in the face of blatant disregard for the judicial system.

(h/t: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-openly-defies-court-order-202132432.html)