Trump signs an executive order mandating proof of U.S. citizenship to vote. This action immediately sparks a firestorm of debate, raising questions about its legality, its practicality, and its potential impact on the upcoming elections. Many immediately point out that the Constitution assigns the power to regulate elections to the states, not the federal government. This executive order seems to directly contradict this established principle of states’ rights, a point often emphasized by those who support the order’s intended goals.
The practicality of the order is also heavily questioned. Many wonder how such a requirement would be enforced, especially considering the diverse documentation Americans possess, and the variations in how states manage voter registration and verification processes.… Continue reading
This section encourages reader participation. The Daily Beast welcomes tips from its audience. Readers are invited to submit information. This can be done via a provided, implied link. The publication values reader contributions.
Read More
On Tuesday, President Trump faced multiple legal setbacks. A federal judge blocked his ban on transgender service members, citing a violation of constitutional rights. Another judge ruled the dismantling of USAID likely unconstitutional, ordering the reinstatement of employee access. Further, other rulings prevented the administration from terminating climate grants and education funding, deeming the actions arbitrary and irrational. These decisions represent significant legal challenges to Trump’s executive orders.
Read More
A recent change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) removes the explicit prohibition of segregated facilities in federal contracts. This alteration, prompted by President Trump’s executive orders on diversity and gender identity, rescinds a clause dating back to the 1960s that mandated integrated workplaces for federal contractors. While existing state and federal laws against segregation remain in effect, legal experts deem this change symbolically significant, potentially undermining decades of progress toward racial and gender equality. The removal of the clause occurred without the typical public comment period, raising concerns about transparency and due process.
Read More
President Trump rescinded President Biden’s executive order mandating a $17.75 minimum wage for federal contractors, reverting to a pre-2022 standard of $13.30 for existing contracts and the federal minimum wage ($7.25) or applicable state minimums for new ones. This action overturned a significant pay increase impacting roughly 20% of the U.S. workforce employed by federal contractors. The repeal also eliminated Biden’s pro-union and apprenticeship program incentives for federal contracts. This decision follows court rulings upholding Biden’s order, raising the possibility of future executive action by Trump to address other policy priorities.
Read More
President Trump’s administration is waging a broad assault on free speech, targeting various sectors with executive orders designed to enforce conformity to its viewpoints. This campaign utilizes threats of funding cuts, retaliation, and even deportation, as exemplified by the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder deported for pro-Palestinian activism. The actions chill free expression, prompting self-censorship among organizations fearful of losing funding, and represent a significant escalation of attacks on First Amendment rights. Legal challenges are mounting against these executive orders, which critics argue are unconstitutionally vague and constitute viewpoint discrimination.
Read More
Rep. Dave Min introduces a bill, the BAD DOGE Act, aiming to repeal President Trump’s executive order establishing DOGE. This bold move seeks to dismantle what the representative and his cosponsors see as an unconstitutional power grab, asserting that Elon Musk’s involvement in DOGE violates fundamental principles of governance.
The bill’s introduction is framed as a necessary response to what is described as a blatant disregard for the separation of powers, federal labor laws, and Congressional authority. The argument presented is that DOGE’s actions are undermining essential government functions, leading to job losses and the misappropriation of funds without proper Congressional oversight.… Continue reading
Judge Lauren King issued a preliminary injunction against President Trump’s executive order banning federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender minors in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado. The injunction, halting the order just before a temporary pause expired, followed a lawsuit filed by doctors arguing the executive order unconstitutionally infringed on states’ rights and violated the separation of powers. The judge’s ruling emphasized upholding constitutional checks and balances, while the Trump administration maintains the order protects children. Legal challenges are expected to continue, potentially reaching the Supreme Court.
Read More
Trump to sign executive order declaring English the official language of the United States. The news of this potential executive order has sparked a wide range of reactions, from amused bewilderment to outright outrage. Some find the entire endeavor a performative act designed to appeal to a specific segment of the population, questioning its practical impact on pressing issues like inflation, job growth, or the stock market.
The proposed order’s implications extend beyond symbolic gestures. Concerns have been raised about its potential to disenfranchise non-native English speakers, particularly regarding voting access and the provision of government services. The possibility of limiting voting instructions to English only, for instance, raises serious questions about equal access to the democratic process.… Continue reading
A federal judge has indefinitely blocked a Trump administration plan to freeze federal aid, issuing a preliminary injunction against the executive order. The judge found the plan to be unconstitutional, citing its impracticality and breadth. The order aimed to pause trillions of dollars in spending virtually overnight, or alternatively, required an impossible feat of reviewing every grant, loan, and fund for compliance within a single day. This massive undertaking was deemed both legally unsound and extraordinarily impractical.
The judge’s decision highlights the inherent flaw in the plan’s design. The sheer scale of the proposed freeze—affecting potentially trillions of dollars—made its swift implementation impossible.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker