President Trump recently took a significant action by dismissing all three remaining members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, effectively neutralizing the sole federal entity dedicated to election administration. This move comes at a crucial juncture, with midterms on the horizon and Trump’s ongoing efforts to alter federal voting regulations. The consequence of this action is a federal election agency left entirely without commissioners.
This development is a direct result of the Supreme Court granting President Trump unprecedented authority to remove the heads of any independent federal agency. This situation paints a somber picture, fueling concerns about the state of our democracy and the integrity of our political system.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court’s decision in *Trump v. Slaughter* significantly reshapes presidential power by overturning nearly a century of precedent, thereby diminishing Congress’s ability to create independent federal agencies. This ruling aligns with the long-standing “unitary executive” theory championed by conservative judges, which asserts that all executive power inherently belongs to the president. Consequently, officials in formerly independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, are now more susceptible to presidential removal, transforming the president into a more dominant figure in governance. While *Trump v. Cook* suggests a potential, albeit narrow, exception for the Federal Reserve, the broader impact of *Slaughter* grants the president greater control over the executive branch.
Read More
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump had the authority to remove Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a decision that significantly expands presidential power over supposedly independent federal agencies. The conservative majority found that provisions limiting presidential removal of commissioners to “for cause” violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. This ruling overturns the precedent set in *Humphrey’s Executor*, which previously shielded agency members from arbitrary presidential dismissal, leading to concerns that FTC policy will become more politicized.
Read More
In a strong dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued that the Court’s decision grants the President unchecked power, exceeding that of even the English monarch whose authority was historically limited by Parliament. The Constitution, its history, and past practices, Sotomayor maintained, clearly empower Congress to restrict presidential removal of agency heads, a power the Founders never intended to bestow. This ruling, therefore, elevates the President above coequal branches and allows for defiance of the very laws the executive is sworn to uphold.
Read More
As the Supreme Court nears the end of its term, several significant decisions are anticipated, potentially altering the scope of presidential authority, particularly concerning actions taken by Donald Trump. These rulings, expected by early July, address critical issues such as immigration policy, the structure of federal agencies, and election regulations, with outcomes that could significantly influence the political landscape. The court is examining the limits of executive power, including attempts to remove leaders of independent agencies and challenges to birthright citizenship. Additionally, rulings are pending on election rules, the participation of transgender athletes in sports, and the use of geofence warrants in investigations, all carrying substantial implications for individual rights and governmental practices.
Read More
Donald Trump recently launched a strong attack on Representative Jamie Raskin via Truth Social, calling for his expulsion from Congress. This outburst was prompted by Raskin’s past role as lead prosecutor in Trump’s second impeachment trial and hints that Democrats might pursue impeachment again if they regain House control. Trump echoed sentiments from Mark Levin, demanding Raskin be “expelled” for allegedly abusing the constitutional system, while Raskin retorted that avoiding impeachment simply requires refraining from impeachable offenses.
Read More
This article argues that critical moments, such as the conflict with Iran, demand public engagement and informed decision-making, not passive acceptance. It emphasizes the vital role of facts, accountability, and fearless reporting in navigating such complex situations, suggesting that history is shaped by active participants rather than those who remain uninvolved. The piece implicitly calls for a rejection of blind trust in favor of a more vigilant and informed citizenry.
Read More
During a 3pm Oval Office announcement, President Trump appeared to fall asleep, despite being awake long enough to introduce his “Trump Promenade” initiative. This incident is the latest in a series of public instances where the president has seemingly dozed off during meetings and events. Administration officials have attempted to dismiss these observations, attributing them to blinking rather than sleep, while Cabinet members have denied ever witnessing the president asleep. However, live video footage suggests visible health issues in the president, prompting concern about his physical and mental condition.
Read More
The article details how President Trump’s administration is implementing strategies to undermine checks on presidential power and shield him from future investigations. A key development is the establishment of an “anti-weaponization fund,” which could offer protection beyond tax matters and potentially discourage compliance with congressional inquiries. This aligns with a broader pattern of dismantling post-Watergate oversight mechanisms, including challenging document preservation laws and firing inspectors general, as midterm elections approach. These actions, bolstered by recent Supreme Court decisions favoring executive power, suggest a deliberate effort to consolidate authority and limit accountability.
Read More
The administration has revealed that President Trump has provided Vice President Vance with “very firm instructions” to be followed in the event of his death. This directive, reportedly contained in a letter to the vice president, stems from concerns about the president’s safety and his own contemplation of his mortality and legacy. The specific content of these instructions remains undisclosed, though past statements suggest a retaliatory stance against foreign adversaries.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker