President Donald Trump’s actions, including the reported arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, have escalated his disregard for Congressional authority and expanded executive power. This move could result in a passive response or outright support from the Republican-led Capitol, further consolidating Trump’s power. Democrats are aiming to counteract this by initiating a war powers vote in the Senate to challenge Trump’s actions. The implications of this power grab could have substantial global consequences.
Read More
As 2025 concludes, Project 2025 stands as the definitive policy plan of Trump’s second term, a blueprint largely crafted by veterans of his first administration. The plan, which Trump initially distanced himself from, has been systematically implemented, with roughly half of its goals achieved by mid-December. However, while the Heritage Foundation’s ideas now shape federal policy, the institution faces internal conflict and fracture. The administration’s actions regarding the press and public broadcasting directly reflect the project’s proposals, mirroring its strategies to consolidate executive power. Despite the success of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation faces internal turmoil.
Read More
Sources indicate that former President Donald Trump is considering pardons for advisors and policymakers as his administration faces legal scrutiny. These potential pardons could encompass key policy figures, such as Stephen Miller, and are reportedly being discussed among Trump, senior aides, and federal appointees. Trump’s inner circle is purportedly preparing a defense, with some pointing to former President Joe Biden’s pardons as precedent. While Trump previously criticized Biden’s use of the pardon power, he now appears to be contemplating similar actions amidst growing legal challenges.
Read More
The Trump administration’s use of lethal force against alleged members of “designated terrorist organizations” in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean raises concerns about expanding executive power. The administration’s refusal to clarify if similar actions could occur within the U.S., particularly against groups designated as “domestic terrorist organizations” under NSPM-7, fuels fears of extrajudicial killings. Experts and lawmakers warn that the broad application of this term lacks legal basis and could be used to suppress dissent. Critics highlight the dangers of labeling actions such as drug trafficking as armed conflict to justify lethal actions.
Read More
The Supreme Court is failing at its most important job: upholding the Constitution and ensuring justice. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the current court isn’t acting in good faith, and is veering towards a dangerous path that prioritizes partisan politics over the fundamental principles upon which this nation was built.
The justices appear to be flirting with an expansive view of executive power, potentially enabling an unaccountable White House. This approach undermines the crucial role the founders intended for Congress, as outlined in Article I of the Constitution. The court has seemed far more lenient towards claims of executive power under certain presidents, even when compared to the approach taken towards other administrations.… Continue reading
Lawmakers were disturbed by the explanation provided regarding the justification for killing two incapacitated men, with the implication that they were still considered threats. The administration maintained that the men were still involved in drug trafficking, thus perpetuating the idea that they were engaged in armed conflict with the U.S. despite being shipwrecked. This rationale contradicts the laws of war, which generally prohibit killing those no longer actively participating in a conflict. The core argument is a dangerous extension of executive power, allowing for summary military execution of civilians in international waters.
Read More
A federal judge in Oregon has issued a permanent injunction preventing the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland to address protests against immigration policies. The judge, appointed during Trump’s term, ruled that the deployment was unjustified because there was no rebellion or inability to execute federal laws. Oregon officials and the California Attorney General celebrated the decision, calling Trump’s actions an abuse of power and a win for the rule of law. The Justice Department, however, immediately appealed the ruling, arguing the deployment was necessary to address violence and protect federal personnel and property, and the case remains ongoing.
Read More
The Supreme Court Justices on Wednesday, expressed considerable skepticism regarding the legality of the aggressive tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. Justices questioned the administration’s justification for enacting the tariffs, with both conservative and liberal justices scrutinizing the process. The core of the legal challenge centers on whether the tariffs, levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, overstepped the President’s authority and infringed on Congress’s power to tax, as lower courts have ruled. If allowed to stand, the tariffs could generate trillions in revenue, highlighting the potential fiscal impact.
Read More
The Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, a move with significant implications for the global economy. The administration defends the tariffs, arguing they are permissible under emergency law, while challengers, including small businesses and Democratic-leaning states, claim the president overstepped his authority. The core dispute revolves around whether the 1977 emergency powers law grants the president the authority to unilaterally levy tariffs, a power constitutionally reserved for Congress. A ruling against Trump could impact the $195 billion in revenue generated by the tariffs and potentially set the tone for future legal challenges to his policies, despite Trump having appointed a conservative majority to the court.
Read More
Rand Paul: “All of these people have been blown up without us knowing their name,” a statement that cuts right to the heart of a disturbing reality, a chilling admission of extrajudicial killings. It’s a stark picture he paints, and honestly, it’s a difficult pill to swallow. It’s a statement that, in its simplicity, lays bare a system that’s gone off the rails. It forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth that decisions are being made, lives are being taken, and we, as a nation, are often left in the dark. The fact that he can say it, and then in the same breath praise the former president, is… well, it’s telling.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood