A DeSmog investigation reveals over 50 high-level Trump administration officials, including 70% of his Cabinet, have ties to Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation plan to expand executive power and shrink the government. Many of these officials directly contributed to or worked for groups behind the plan’s “Mandate for Leadership” document. This contradicts Trump’s repeated denials of involvement, as numerous administration policies directly align with Project 2025’s proposals. The findings highlight the significant influence of Project 2025 despite its low public approval.
Read More
A US trade court ruled President Trump’s sweeping tariffs illegal, exceeding his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Trump administration immediately appealed, seeking a stay from the ruling to prevent what it called irreparable economic harm, and plans to take the case to the Supreme Court. The ruling invalidated tariff orders issued under the IEEPA, requiring new orders within ten days, but industry-specific tariffs remain unaffected. While the White House denounced the decision as judicial overreach, the ruling was celebrated in global financial markets.
Read More
A US federal court blocked President Trump’s global tariffs, ruling that the invoked emergency law didn’t grant him unilateral authority to impose them. The court cited the Constitution’s grant of commerce regulation power to Congress. The Trump administration plans to appeal, while various parties, including affected businesses and states, celebrated the decision. Global markets reacted positively to the ruling, although the long-term effects remain uncertain pending appeals.
Read More
A federal court blocked President Trump’s broad use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, halting a key component of his trade policy. The ruling, from the U.S. Court of International Trade, found that Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). While some tariffs imposed under different legal authorities remain, the decision represents a significant legal setback for the administration. The White House has appealed the ruling, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court review.
Read More
In his new book, investor Ray Dalio compares President Trump’s policies to those of 1930s far-right regimes, highlighting Trump’s aggressive expansion of executive power exceeding even that of predecessors like Jackson and Roosevelt. Dalio questions whether Trump is a demagogue, leveraging emotional appeals to bypass other government branches and control the media. This strongman approach stems from America’s deep political polarization, fostering a confrontational governing style that prioritizes dictation over bipartisan cooperation. The author emphasizes the risks of Trump’s cost-cutting measures and the need to monitor the well-being of the lower 60% of the population.
Read More
At West Point’s commencement, President Trump asserted his election victory granted him unrestrained power to govern as he sees fit, echoing similar claims made previously. He lauded the military, taking credit for its strength while simultaneously praising the graduating cadets as the “first West Point graduates of the golden age of America.” Despite numerous court rulings against his administration’s actions, including unlawful deportations, Trump expressed confidence that judges would eventually allow him to continue his policies. His speech also featured attacks on critical race theory, transgender athletes, and diversity initiatives.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s decision to curtail the independence of federal agencies fundamentally alters the balance of power, granting the executive branch significantly more control. This empowers President Trump to prioritize political aims over expertise and reasoned policy, creating long-term damage to the stability and effectiveness of government institutions. Simultaneously, various legal battles are unfolding, with some courts blocking Trump administration actions like mass layoffs and the silencing of Voice of America, while others permit them to continue. The ongoing challenges to the administration’s actions highlight the deep political divisions and the increasingly fraught relationship between the branches of government.
Read More
An appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration must actively seek the return of a man wrongly deported to El Salvador. This decision underscores a critical legal battle over executive branch compliance with judicial orders, particularly concerning immigration matters. The case highlights the complexities of international legal cooperation and the limitations of judicial power when dealing with the executive branch’s control over foreign policy.
The core issue centers on the blatant disregard for a lower court’s ruling. The initial court order clearly stated that the deportation was unlawful and mandated the return of the individual. However, the executive branch seemingly ignored this directive, leading to the appeals court intervention.… Continue reading
President Trump’s frequent declarations of national emergency, totaling eight within his first 100 days, far exceed those of previous administrations. These declarations, encompassing issues ranging from border security to trade disputes, grant the president access to special authorities not otherwise available. The legality of these actions is being challenged in court, raising concerns about the potential for abuse of emergency powers. These powers, stemming from legislation dating back to World War I and codified in the National Emergencies Act, grant the president extensive control over various aspects of national life, raising questions about the appropriate balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
Read More
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to temporarily block the deportation of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act, citing insufficient notice and resources provided by the Trump administration before their removal. The court found the 24-hour notice given before deportation inadequate, mandating a lower court revisit the appropriate notice period. While not addressing the Act’s proper application, the decision grants temporary relief pending the lower court’s determination, acknowledging both national security interests and constitutional due process. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, questioning the urgency of the situation and criticizing the lower court’s actions.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood