Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial Verdict To Be Delivered

Feminist Rape Hoax Obliterates Lives Of Canadian Hockey Stars

Canada

false accusations

Hockey

Judges

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Rape

Sexual Assault

trial

The Senate on Tuesday narrowly voted to confirm a Justice Department official who previously defended President Donald Trump during his criminal trials to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Overcoming vigorous Democrat opposition, the Republican-led Senate confirmed acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove to the lifetime judicial position in a 50-49 vote. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Susan Collins (ME) joined Democrats in voting against his appointment. 
“Congratulations to our dear friend Emil Bove on his confirmation to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals! This is a GREAT day for our country,” Attorney General Pam Bondi <a href="https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/1950363578646544696">said</a> on X. “I cannot thank Emil enough for his tireless work and support at [the Justice Department]. He will be missed — and he will be an outstanding judge.”
Bove previously worked as Trump’s lawyer when the Biden administration prosecuted him over his alleged mishandling of classified documents and alleged election interference in the 2020 election. Bove also worked with Trump on the New York hush money case, where Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records but given an unconditional discharge. Before working for Trump, Bove was a federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, working on drug and terrorism cases.
In the weeks after Trump nominated him to the judgeship, Democrats have pointed to numerous complaints against Bove from whistleblowers claiming that he instructed Justice Department officials to ignore judicial orders. Democrats were also critical of Bove’s role in the firing of some of the Justice Department lawyers who led the January 6 prosecutions and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/doj-orders-charges-to-be-dismissed-against-nyc-mayor-eric-adams-on-certain-conditions">dismissal</a> of the federal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. 
Ahead of the confirmation vote, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-exhaustive-efforts-to-vet-emil-boves-nomination-prove-hes-fit-for-the-job">defended</a> Bove, accusing Democrats of trying to “weaponize” the whistleblower process. 
“He has a strong legal background and has served his country honorably. I believe he will be a diligent, capable, and fair jurist,&#8221; Grassley said. “It’s no surprise to anyone who’s followed this nomination that I have serious concerns with how my Democratic colleagues have conducted themselves. The vicious rhetoric, unfair accusations and abuse directed at Mr. Bove by some on this Committee has crossed the line.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) <a href="https://apnews.com/article/emil-bove-confirmation-whistleblowers-trump-republicans-democrats-71f92822cb2e8d57387748c2451fa724">claimed</a> that the confirmation was a “dark day” for the country. 
“It’s unfathomable that just over four years after the insurrection at the Capitol, when rioters smashed windows, ransacked offices, desecrated this chamber, Senate Republicans are willingly putting someone on the bench who shielded these rioters from facing justice, who said their prosecution was a grave national injustice,” he said.

Jury Continues Deliberations In Trump Hush Money Trial

Republicans Push Past Democrat Obstruction To Confirm Trump-Aligned Judge

Chuck Grassley

Chuck Schumer

Congress

Department of Justice

Donald Trump

Lisa Murkowski

Politics

Senate

Susan Collins

President Donald Trump pushed Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Tuesday to toss a Senate tradition that has empowered Democratic senators to unilaterally block the president’s judicial nominees.
Grassley chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees judicial nominations. The “blue slip” custom on the committee is not required, but was adopted as an internal vetting procedure to encourage communication between the White House and the senators of the state in which the nominee will serve, giving senators influence over appointments in their states.
Democrats have stalled Trump’s nominees by refusing to give their assent with “blue slips,” a blue-colored form given to senators where a federal judicial nominee would serve. If the senator withholds or returns a negative blue slip expressing disapproval, they can use the custom as a tool for obstruction. The tradition&#8217;s enforcement is controlled by the chair&#8217;s discretion.
“Chuck Grassley, who I got re-elected to the U.S. Senate when he was down, by a lot, in the Great State of Iowa, could solve the ‘Blue Slip’ problem we are having with respect to the appointment of Highly Qualified Judges and U.S. Attorneys, with a mere flick of the pen,” <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114938820270436889">said</a> Trump. “Democrats like Schumer, Warner, Kaine, Booker, Schiff, and others, SLEAZEBAGS ALL, have an ironclad stoppage of Great Republican Candidates.”
“Put simply, the President of the United States will never be permitted to appoint the person of his choice because of an ancient, and probably Unconstitutional, ‘CUSTOM,’ that if you have, even one person in the opposite Party serving in the U.S. Senate, he/she must give consent, thereby completely stopping the opposite Party’s Nomination,” he added.
The president said that in states with Democratic senators, his own judicial nominees would have to either be a Democrat or “a weak and ineffective Republican” to receive blue slip approvals.
“I would never be able to appoint Great Judges or U.S. Attorneys in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Virginia, and other places, where there is, coincidentally, the highest level of crime and corruption — The places where fantastic people are most needed!” the president said.
Trump said that former President Joe Biden broke the blue slip custom at least twice during his term, and that previous presidents have also worked around the Senate tradition.
A Grassley spokesman suggested in a statement on Tuesday that, despite the president’s pressure, the Judiciary Committee chair would retain the blue slip custom.
“Chairman Grassley has already successfully moved U.S. Attorneys through committee who have received blue slips from Democrats, including Senators Warner and Kaine of Virginia and Klobuchar and Smith of Minnesota,” the spokesman said, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/07/29/congress/trump-hits-grassley-00483005">Politico</a>. “When a nominee comes out of committee all 100 senators have a say on the nomination and part of their consideration is based on the home state senators’ input.”

Trump Rips ‘Unconstitutional’ Senate Custom That Allows Democrat ‘SLEAZEBAGS’ To Stall Judicial Noms

Executive

A Washington, D.C., judge on Tuesday said President Donald Trump did not have the authority to name the leader of a small, USAID-like agency after an African company sued, citing the hardship of having to lay off its workers.
Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that Trump appointee Pete Marocco, who oversaw the demolition of USAID, was not validly appointed to the African Development Foundation, where he played a similar role, and, therefore, had no authority to terminate grants.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by a consulting firm in Zambia, called Rural Development Innovations Limited, represented by lawyers from the left-wing American group Democracy Forward.
Trump fired the entirety of the African Development Foundation&#8217;s board, and the agency locked its doors to prevent Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employees from gaining access to its books. One of the fired board members sued, but Judge Leon tossed that lawsuit, affirming that the president had the right to fire board members.
In this second lawsuit, though, Leon indicated that Trump likely did not have the power to determine who runs the agency in the board members&#8217; absence. Under the legislation establishing the Foundation, the president nominates board members, but they must be confirmed by the Senate.
Marocco had been named &#8220;acting&#8221; chairman of the board. The chief role of the board is to appoint a president who runs day-to-day operations, and Marocco appointed himself.
The Trump administration <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789.12.0.pdf">argued</a> that &#8220;because the Federal Vacancies Act does not apply to the Foundation, the President has the inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to designate acting members of the Foundation Board until the Senate confirms his nominees to fill full terms&#8230; The President must be able to designate acting officials to fulfill his duty.&#8221;
It is unclear how Leon believes the management of the federal agency should be chosen, since he acknowledges that the agency has no board. The African Development Foundation&#8217;s previous president, Travis Adkins, who was accused of anti-white racism and abuse of employees, resigned before the DOGE takeover.
After Adkins&#8217;s resignation, the role was filled by a committee of the agency&#8217;s three top employees, including Chief Financial Officer Mathieu Zahui. The USAID inspector general presented evidence in court in November 2024 that Zahui steered contracts to a friend in exchange for kickbacks, but he has so far not been criminally charged.
If the group&#8217;s staff is reinstated and its top management structure restored, that would put the subject of a criminal investigation in charge of an agency, instead of the president&#8217;s appointee.
Rural Development Innovations Limited &#8220;offers clients broad expertise in financial management, enterprise development, organizational capacity development, strategy development and implementation, project management, marketing and market access development,&#8221; its lawyers <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789.1.0_1.pdf">wrote</a>.
Yet it doesn&#8217;t actually have any clients except the United States government. They added: &#8220;RDI receives 100% of its funding from USADF and has been awarded a USADF grant that continues through 2028. Yet in April 2025, RDI received notice from Pete Marocco that its grant was being terminated immediately because RDI somehow no longer satisfied USADF’s priorities. As a result, RDI will be forced to shut down entirely by the end of June 2025.&#8221;
Judge Leon wrote that &#8220;RDI has shown irreparable injury&#8230; Traditionally, &#8216;economic loss does not, in and of itself constitute irreparable harm,'&#8221; but an &#8220;exception exists when &#8216;the loss threatens the very existence of the movant&#8217;s business.&#8221; That exception applied because RDI had no customers other than the United States government. RDI argued that America had an obligation not to terminate its funding because Zambian law requires the payment of severance to laid-off employees, which it could not afford to do.
Two African Development Foundation employees were also plaintiffs in the lawsuit. But, unlike the African company, the American workers had no recourse, the judge <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789.26.0.pdf">ruled</a>.
Leon wrote that &#8220;RDI requests that the Court preliminarily enjoin all defendants&#8211;including the President of the United States.&#8221; The court does not have the power to enjoin the president, he wrote, but the <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789/gov.uscourts.dcd.280789.27.0.pdf">injunction</a> blocks Marocco &#8220;from taking actions as the acting chairperson of the United States African Development Foundation&#8217;s board of directors and president,&#8221; and White House, Treasury, and Department of Government Efficiency officials, from &#8220;implementing or giving effect to directives from Marocco.&#8221;
An injunction is a temporary order that gives relief to one side while a final resolution is pending. It is given when the judge believes a party is likely to win the case and will suffer harm in the meantime if it has to wait months.
Typically, a party seeking an injunction is supposed to post a monetary bond that would be used to compensate the opposing party if that party ultimately wins the case. The Trump administration has highlighted the role that such bonds would play in preventing groups from seeking endless injunctions by giving them skin in the game.
But courts have &#8220;discretion&#8230;to determine the appropriate amount of an injunction bond,&#8221; Judge Leon wrote, and he would require no bond at all from the African group, since the Trump administration has &#8220;not argued that they will suffer monetary loss if the Court were to issue an injunction.&#8221;
A four-part Daily Wire series documented significant ethical and financial problems at the African Development Foundation, which former employees said was likely the reason it was so opposed to scrutiny by DOGE:
PART ONE: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/foreign-aid-official-who-resisted-doge-took-secret-payments-after-steering-africa-money-to-friend?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Foreign+Aid+Official+Who+Resisted+DOGE+Took+Secret+Payments+After+Steering+Africa+Money+To+Friend%C2%A0">Foreign Aid Official Who Resisted DOGE Took Secret Payments After Steering Africa Money To Friend </a>
PART TWO: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/african-aid-agency-used-foreign-pass-throughs-to-hide-money-that-went-to-d-c-staff-friends?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=African+Aid+Agency+Used+Foreign+Pass-Throughs+To+Hide+Money+That+Went+To+D.C.+Staff%2C+Friends" target="_blank" rel="noopener">African Aid Agency Used Foreign Pass-Throughs To Hide Money That Went To D.C. Staff</a>
PART THREE: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/aid-agency-pushed-officials-for-profit-pyramid-scheme-on-poor-africans?author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Aid+Agency+Pushed+Official%E2%80%99s+For-Profit+Pyramid+Scheme+On+Poor+Africans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Aid Agency Pushed Official’s For-Profit Pyramid Scheme On Poor Africans</a>
PART FOUR: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/them-white-motherf-ers-racist-agency-framed-its-lawyer-after-he-discovered-lawbreaking-he-says?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Luke+Rosiak&amp;category=Investigation&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=%E2%80%98Them+White+Motherf-ers%E2%80%99%3A+Racist+Agency+Framed+Its+Lawyer+After+He+Discovered+Lawbreaking%2C+He+Says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">‘Them White Motherf-ers’: Racist Agency Framed Its Lawyer After He Discovered Lawbreaking, He Says</a>

Mathieu Zahui, chief financial officer of the African Development Foundation

Judge Orders Foreign Aid Agency Resurrected After African Company Sues

Africa

USAID

MixCollage-17-Jun-2025-04-14-PM-4521

LGBT Judge Lets Child Killer Walk Free In Shocking Court Decision

Children

Drugs

Leftists

LGBT

Oregon

Prison

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP-MEMORIAL DAY

The Russia Hoax Was Just The Beginning: The Left’s Plan To Undermine Trump’s Second Term

The Russia Hoax Was Just The Beginning: The Left's Plan To Undermine Trump’s Second Term

Democrats

James Clapper

John Durham

Peter Strzok

President Trump

Robert Mueller

Russiagate

The Court of International Trade, which is a court that nobody has ever heard of, moved to block President Trump&#8217;s tariffs in a “sweeping ruling,” according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-court-blocks-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-2025-05-28/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reuters</a>, that “found the president overstepped his authority by imposing across the board duties on imports from U.S. trading partners.”
The court suggested that the law under which the President of the United States was declaring these tariffs was not, in fact, capable of carrying those tariffs because the president used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which gives the president the power to regulate imports during certain emergency situations.
But those emergency situations do not actually extend to issues such as a trade deficit. Big trade deficits do not amount to a national emergency.
That&#8217;s what the court found — and the court isn&#8217;t wrong. If the president actually wants to impose tariffs, there are other legal mechanisms he can pursue, but this should be in the purview of Congress. It always should have been in the purview of Congress.
You don&#8217;t want any president being able to unilaterally decide that there should be massive tariffs across the board on all of America&#8217;s trading partners. That is not the balance of powers that was envisioned by the Constitution, by the Founders, the Framers.
It&#8217;s not what they wanted. It&#8217;s not something that I want either. And whether you like the tariffs or you don&#8217;t like the tariffs is irrelevant to the question of whether the president ought to have the unilateral capacity to do as President Trump did on Liberation Day and simply declare a 46% tariff on Vietnam, or a 145% tariff on China. Congress should have to sign off at some point.
Does this mean that all the tariffs are going to go away permanently? No. In fact, an appeals court has already granted a <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/29/blocked-trump-tariffs-trade-court-appeal.html">temporary stay</a> allowing Trump’s tariffs to remain in place.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2209?elementPosition=6&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Still, the markets spiked on the news that the tariffs would be blocked. The Dow Jones Industrial Average futures market immediately jumped significantly and then came back down to earth a little bit as the markets realized, “Oh, wait a second; it may be that President Trump is still going to be able to do some of these tariffs.”
Based on the lower court’s initial block, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/tariff-ruling-is-a-setback-for-trump-but-doesnt-end-trade-war-b1e83c73">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported:
<blockquote>The administration has already said it will appeal the ruling, and trade experts and lawyers say it has a variety of other legal avenues to prosecute the trade war that are unaffected by Wednesday’s decision.
“This is just one more bump in the tariff road that we are going to be on for as long as Trump remains in office,” said Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Singapore-based Hinrich Foundation, which advocates for free and open trade. “He loves tariffs and he loves the idea of being able to impose them at will, and I don’t think he’s going to give that up easily.” &#8230;
The judgment undermines the legal basis for those “reciprocal” tariffs—which the administration paused for 90 days to allow time for negotiations—that are the centerpiece of Trump’s effort to rein in the U.S.’s yawning trade deficit. The court also shot down special levies of 20% imposed on Canada, Mexico and China for their alleged role in the U.S. fentanyl crisis.</blockquote>
Theoretically, you could make the case that we should put tariffs on Mexico and declare a national emergency on the basis of fentanyl.
You could at least make a colorable case for that. But you could never make a colorable case that that was the case with Canada. The United States last year, in terms of fentanyl, saw something like 50 pounds of fentanyl the entire year at the border. The idea that there was a national emergency that merited a 20% tariff on Canada originally far exceeded the scope of authority originally presented to the President of the United States by that act in 1977.
There are still a bunch of other tariffs that are going to be on the books if the temporary stay is lifted. The court&#8217;s decision does not impact 25% levies that are in place on steel, aluminum, and cars because those levies were imposed using alternative legal avenues, not the national emergency situation. Those are conventional avenues. Those are known as Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs. The president does have the capacity to actually do tariffs under that sort of power, but they&#8217;re usually used for specific sectors. They are not blanket across the board giant tariffs on entire countries.
The markets were pretty happy about the lower court’s initial decision to block the tariffs. If the stay is lifted, does this mean the end of President Trump&#8217;s trade war?
No. It does mean that the president does not have the unilateral ability, by declaring a national emergency, to impose gigantic tariff regimes across the board.
And that is a good thing. I believe that we should be drawing closer trade relations with our allies and that the shot across the bow, if it was meant to get them to the table, still exists.
But the fact is that there was economic damage from the uncertainty wrought by the tariff war on our allies.
We should be gradually ramping up tariffs on China, reshoring manufacturing away from China, making closer trade alliances with countries that are more aligned with us, ranging from Vietnam to India. All of that would be good.
I don&#8217;t like the tariff policy, but that is actually a peripheral issue; whether you are a fan of the president or not, the balance of power that was drawn in the Constitution should be something that we like and want.
And that’s for this reason: I promise you, the next time a Democrat takes office, that same exact national emergency power will be used for something that you don&#8217;t like.

TOPSHOT-US-TRADE-TARIFF-MARKETS-NYSE

Court Blocks Trump’s Tariffs. Here’s Why It’s Correct.

Court Blocks Trump's Tariffs. Here’s Why It's Correct.

Ben Shapiro

Court

Mexico

Tariffs

We&#8217;ve been trending in this direction for some time now, but after yesterday&#8217;s ruling by a three-judge panel on the United States Court of International Trade in Manhattan — which struck down all of the Trump administration&#8217;s tariffs — it&#8217;s now official: We don&#8217;t need any more rulings from federal judges about what the president of the United States isn&#8217;t allowed to do. Those are completely pointless. Instead, what we need, in our alleged first-world democracy, is a ruling from some federal court explaining, in as much detail as possible, what exactly the president of the United States does have the authority to do while in office. That would be the most efficient way forward, at this point.
In just the past five months, federal courts have held that the Trump administration has no authority to do the following:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Change federal government websites</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Fire any Executive Branch employees</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ban mentally disturbed individuals from joining the armed forces </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eliminate slush funds for corrupt NGOs</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stop funneling billions of dollars of taxpayer money to anti-white universities like Harvard</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eliminate wasteful &#8220;administrative spending&#8221; that&#8217;s tacked onto every single scientific grant</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Deport illegal alien gang members — even the wife-beaters and terrorists</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Cut federal funding to child castration services for children</li>
</ul>
And now, after all of these rulings and dozens more like them, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/worlds-stock-markets-react-to-court-ruling-against-trumps-tariffs?author=Hank+Berrien&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=World%E2%80%99s+Stock+Markets+React+To+Court+Ruling+Against+Trump%E2%80%99s+Tariffs">we heard last night</a> from the U.S. Court of International Trade that the president of the United States also does not have the power to impose emergency tariffs on foreign nations. Before we go into the details about this ruling and the problems I have with it, there&#8217;s a very important point that needs to be made here, which is this: Even if you think tariffs are a terrible idea — and really even if you believe that the Court of International Trade made the right ruling in this particular case — you simply cannot deny that the judicial system in this country, because of its own overzealousness, has never been less legitimate than it is right now.
The sheer number of injunctions that have been issued, blocking every single agenda item that the democratically elected president has attempted to execute, is unprecedented in the history of the United States. We&#8217;re in comical, “jump-the-shark” territory. And that&#8217;s a very, very big deal, because courts don&#8217;t have militaries. They can&#8217;t enforce their own rulings. When they lose legitimacy, they lose everything. And with this latest ruling, on top of all the other rulings, legitimacy is long gone.
So who does have legitimacy? Where does legitimacy come from? For judges, legitimacy comes from restraint and consistency, and adherence to the law. For presidents, it comes from democratic elections. It comes from campaigning, and openly telling voters what you plan to do, if and when you&#8217;re elected. And with that in mind, you will not find a single person — even the most deranged anchor on MSNBC — who will disagree with this statement: Donald Trump explicitly campaigned on imposing massive tariffs on foreign nations in order to return manufacturing to the United States. That was always a core plank of his domestic agenda. That doesn&#8217;t mean you have to agree with him. You can feel however you want about tariffs. But it does mean that Trump&#8217;s plan was put to a vote. And the American people decided that Donald Trump&#8217;s economic agenda was the best way forward. That&#8217;s legitimacy. If that&#8217;s not legitimacy, then legitimacy has no meaning. And neither does democracy.
Again, even on MSNBC, they concede this point. Last night, as he was celebrating this court decision, the perpetually unhinged Lawrence O&#8217;Donnell admitted that Trump&#8217;s entire campaign was about tariffs. He says he was talking about tariffs the whole time — and he blames the &#8220;campaign press&#8221; for not talking about tariffs enough. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 unconstitutional Tariffs" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O-_kzh1ORhE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The point of this little diatribe from Lawrence O&#8217;Donnell is to suggest that, if only the &#8220;campaign press&#8221; had covered Trump&#8217;s tariffs a little bit more, then the voters would have rejected his entire candidacy. This is a very familiar tactic on the Left. They did the same thing with Russiagate. They claimed that, if only people knew that the Russian government had spent $100,000 on Facebook memes back in 2016, then they would never have voted against Hillary Clinton. You poor, poor voters. You&#8217;re always being tricked by Donald Trump. You have no agency whatsoever. Thankfully, the courts will correct that little problem for you.
This is about as undemocratic as it gets. It is asinine, narcissistic and above all, totalitarian. Of course, it wasn&#8217;t just this one MSNBC blowhard who discovered that Trump was talking about tariffs all the time. The entire country heard Trump talk about tariffs. And then they overwhelmingly decided to elect him. And that should matter, more than anything else. Unless the president clearly and unambiguously exceeds his authority under the constitution, then the courts should respect the will of the voters.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1605-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
And in this case, if you read the ruling from the panel of judges on the United States Court of International Trade, you&#8217;ll discover that Donald Trump did not actually exceed his authority. In order to come to the opposite conclusion, a lot of mental gymnastics were required on the part of this three-judge panel. I want to start with the court&#8217;s handling of Trump&#8217;s fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. At the moment this ruling was issued, the tariffs stood at 25% for Mexican and Canadian products, and 20% for Chinese products (with an exception for Canadian energy, which remained at 10%).
Normally, the president can&#8217;t issue tariffs that are quite this high. However, as you probably remember, the Trump administration determined — rightly — that fentanyl trafficking is a national emergency because tens of thousands of Americans are dying each year from fentanyl that&#8217;s imported from overseas. Therefore, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the White House asserted its authority to impose substantial tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China — tariffs that are much higher than they otherwise could be.
Under this emergency act, the president is allowed to, “&#8230; deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.&#8221;
Again, the president can, “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States &#8230; if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.&#8221;
That&#8217;s a direct quote from the text of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which became law in the 1970s. That&#8217;s the authority Congress delegated to the president. Under this Act, the president can impose substantial tariffs to &#8220;deal with&#8221; any &#8220;extraordinary threat,&#8221; as long as he declares a national emergency. So you might be asking: Isn&#8217;t that exactly what happened in this case? Didn&#8217;t Trump impose the fentanyl tariffs in order to pressure countries like Mexico and China to stop allowing fentanyl into this country? Under the terms of this law, isn&#8217;t the president implementing these tariffs to &#8220;deal with&#8221; the fentanyl crisis?
According to the trade court, the answer to that question is no. Here&#8217;s their reasoning. They focus extensively on the words &#8220;Deal with&#8221; in the law that I just read.
Here&#8217;s what <a href="https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf">they said</a>:
<blockquote>&#8216;Deal with&#8217; connotes a direct link between an act and the problem it purports to address. A tax deals with a budget deficit by raising revenue. A dam deals with flooding by holding back a river. But there is no such association between the act of imposing a tariff and the &#8216;unusual and extraordinary threats&#8217; that the [Fentanyl] Trafficking Orders purport to combat. &#8230; The [Fentanyl] Trafficking Orders do not &#8216;deal with&#8217; their stated objectives. Rather, as the Government acknowledges, the Orders aim to create leverage to &#8216;deal with&#8217; those objectives.</blockquote>
In other words, the court is acknowledging that the fentanyl tariffs are being used by the Trump administration as a form of leverage, which can force foreign countries to &#8220;deal with&#8221; the fentanyl problem. But they&#8217;re claiming that, under the law, that&#8217;s not allowed. That&#8217;s not how you&#8217;re supposed to &#8220;deal with&#8221; fentanyl, according to this three-judge panel. The judges are saying that the Trump administration is assuming too much power, and that &#8220;leverage&#8221; isn&#8217;t the appropriate way to &#8220;deal with&#8221; an emergency. Therefore, apparently, the Trump administration needed to impose a tariff specifically on fentanyl imports, or something like that — even though it would obviously accomplish nothing at all, because no one is declaring their fentanyl shipments at the border.
I want to emphasize this a little more, because this part of the ruling really deserves more attention than it&#8217;s getting. Congress passed a law that allows the president to &#8220;deal with&#8221; any emergency he declares. And now, decades later, this trade court is saying, in effect — &#8220;no, you can&#8217;t deal with it like that.&#8221; But there&#8217;s nothing in the law that justifies their ruling. The court just makes it up. The only reasoning that the court provides — which is contained in two paragraphs at the end of their opinion — is that the Trump administration&#8217;s approach would justify any kind of tariff they wanted to impose, no matter how ridiculous. They&#8217;re saying that, if Trump can use &#8220;leverage&#8221; as a justification, then he can impose whatever tariff he wants. But that&#8217;s not true. There has to be an underlying emergency, first of all. And the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans every year certainly qualifies.
Additionally, there&#8217;s evidence that, in this case, Trump&#8217;s &#8220;leverage&#8221; is indeed working. Within days of Trump&#8217;s sweeping tariffs on Canada, for example, Trudeau appointed a fentanyl czar and pledged to screen exports more carefully, in order to prevent fentanyl from entering into this country.
So we&#8217;re not talking about some arbitrary tariff that has no connection to reality. We&#8217;re talking about a tariff that has already produced tangible results that will stem the flow of fentanyl. But apparently, that&#8217;s not good enough.
I&#8217;m highlighting this part of the ruling because it underscores the extent of the judicial coup we&#8217;re witnessing. Congress delegated authority to the president to &#8220;deal with&#8221; an emergency. He attempted to do that. And then the court overrides him, based on ad hoc reasoning that invalidates the will of the voters, who elected the Trump administration (and the members of Congress who passed that emergency tariff law). Again, it&#8217;s fine if you think the tariffs are a bad idea, or good idea, or if you have mixed feelings about it. But the solution, in that case, is for Congress to rescind the tariff power — in whole or in part. The solution is not for random courts in Manhattan to override the president and the Congress, based on very strained interpretations of the law.
This ruling has already been appealed, and it&#8217;s clear that the Trump administration can still impose tariffs — albeit reduced ones — under the non-emergency tariff powers that have been passed by Congress. And late on Thursday, a federal appeals court put a temporary stay on the court&#8217;s ruling. So the ultimate outcome here is still uncertain. What&#8217;s not uncertain is that federal judges, once again, have undermined what&#8217;s left of their legitimacy with this ruling. If this had been the very first injunction against a Trump administration policy, it wouldn’t be as much of a crisis. People may even give the judges the benefit of the doubt throughout the appeals process. But we&#8217;ve seen more than 100 rulings like this by now. This is unsustainable — to the point that, if one of these federal judges somehow manages to issue a good ruling, no one will follow it. That&#8217;s not the ideal outcome for this country or the rule of law, obviously. But with this decision from a court that no one has ever heard of — which erases the president&#8217;s congressionally-approved authority to &#8220;deal with&#8221; national emergencies — it&#8217;s the outcome that now appears to be inevitable.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Executive Order Aimed At WilmerHale Law Firm

These Federal Judges Are Trying To Stop Trump From Dealing With The Fentanyl Crisis

Federal Government

Fentanyl

The White House is banking on the highest court in the land to save President Donald Trump&#8217;s sweeping tariffs on foreign nations that were blocked by a trio of judges in an ongoing legal fight this week.
&#8220;These judges are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage,&#8221; White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters in a briefing on Thursday, adding moments later, &#8220;Ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this, for the sake of our Constitution and our country.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a>: &#8220;Last night the Trump administration faced another example of judicial overreach&#8230;Three judges of the U.S. Court of international trade&#8230;brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump&#8230;the courts should have no role here.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/NchnASHzJP">pic.twitter.com/NchnASHzJP</a>
— CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1928144137611522120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the New York-based Court of International Trade <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-court-blocks-trumps-sweeping-liberation-day-tariffs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rejected</a> Trump&#8217;s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) and struck down his sweeping levies on imports from countries around the world.
The Trump administration is challenging the ruling and <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23106/gov.uscourts.cafc.23106.7.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a> it &#8220;plans to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court&#8221; on Friday &#8220;to avoid irreparable national-security and economic harms at stake&#8221; if a federal appeals court does not provide interim relief.
Leavitt said the U.S. Court of International Trade judges &#8220;abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump&#8221; and &#8220;failed to acknowledge that the President of the United States has core foreign affairs powers and authority given to him by Congress to protect the United States economy and national security.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
After the Republican-led Senate <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senate-rejects-bid-to-stop-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-vance-stifles-attempt-to-resurrect-it" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rejected</a> last month a resolution spearheaded by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to stop the national emergency declaration that Trump used to impose his “Liberation Day” tariffs, the courts &#8220;should have no role here,&#8221; Leavitt insisted.
&#8220;America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges,&#8221; Leavitt said, alluding to negotiations the U.S. is having with other nations to strike trade deals.
There are more hurdles ahead for the Trump administration. Another federal judge issued a <a href="https://apnews.com/live/donald-trump-news-updates-5-29-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a> on Thursday, around when Leavitt spoke to reporters, that placed a stoppage on the president&#8217;s tariffs.
In a post on X, Sen. Paul <a href="https://x.com/RandPaul/status/1928111254704386119" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, &#8220;I have said time and time again that the Founders wanted to prevent one person from having unilateral control and decision-making powers. That’s why the power of the purse and the ability to tax lie with Congress, not the president.&#8221;

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt

SCOTUS ‘Must Put An End’ To Tariff Blockage, White House Says

Karoline Leavitt

Rand Paul

Supreme Court

Trade War

White House

Judges were one of the big wins of President Donald Trump’s first term. His initial batch of nominees this term suggests he’s not tired of winning yet.
Last week, Trump named several judges for the district court in Missouri and the municipal court in Washington, D.C. And earlier this month, he <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/white-house-press-release-president-donald-j-trump-announces-judicial-candidate-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> Whitney Hermandorfer as his nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
All are strong picks, but Hermandorfer has garnered the most attention — and for good reason.
She’s Trump’s only court of appeals nominee so far. This is significant because the courts of appeals are one level below the Supreme Court in more ways than one. They resolve upwards of 99% of federal litigation, while the High Court rules on around 60 cases each year.
Moreover, the court of appeals is a common stepping stone to higher office. Eight of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices previously served on the court of appeals,
But perhaps most importantly, Hermandorfer’s nomination suggests that Trump will apply the same criteria we saw for his first-term judicial nominees: originalists who will uphold the rule of law and are not afraid of the opprobrium heaped on those who take on the Left’s sacred cows.
That’s what has the Left running scared.
As Hermandorfer’s current boss, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, <a href="https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2025/5/2/pr25-26.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> upon the announcement of her nomination, she is “an absolute rock star” and “perhaps the single most credentialed lawyer in America, having clerked for a full third of the justices on the Supreme Court.” He wasn’t exaggerating.
She graduated from Princeton University magna cum laude and was first in her class at the George Washington University Law School, where she was editor-in-chief of the George Washington University Law Review. Most lawyers would consider having clerked at the Supreme Court the gold standard for a nominee, but Hermandorfer went even further.
After clerking for Judge Richard Leon of the D.C. district court, she served then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit before clerking on the Supreme Court for Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett. That’s a trifecta of every type of federal clerkship possible, plus an extraordinary double Supreme Court clerkship. As Trump put it in his Truth Social <a href="https://x.com/TruthTrumpPosts/status/1918151975453245946" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announcement</a>, Hermandorfer “has a long history of working for Judges and Justices who respect the RULE OF LAW.”
Hermandorfer has long been part of the conservative legal movement, and in recent years has played an integral role in the successful Tennessee Attorney General’s office, where she has served under <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/tennessee-ag-jonathan-skrmetti-is-the-real-deal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Skrmetti</a> as director of the Strategic Litigation Unit. State attorneys general were the tip of the spear defending constitutional limits under the Biden administration, and Hermandorfer played an important role by leading two successful multi-state coalitions <a href="https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/02/242249P.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">challenging</a> Biden’s Title IX regulations mandating that boys be allowed to play girls’ sports and use girls’ facilities in schools and <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0150n-06.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arguing</a> against his attempts to rewrite Pregnant Workers Fairness Act regulations to circumvent pro-life state laws.
Of course, Hermandorfer’s stellar resume won’t guarantee her a smooth confirmation. Leftist groups, including the Alliance for Justice, have already come out <a href="https://afj.org/article/trumps-first-judicial-nominee-has-disturbing-extremist-record/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">attacking</a> her for embracing Trump’s “discriminatory authoritarian agenda” and said Trump nominees do “not deserve the benefit of the doubt…when we already have 234 examples of his judges causing harm on the bench.”
Indeed, the 234 Article III judges Trump <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judicial-nominations-update-64/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">appointed</a> during his first term are among the highest four-year totals in history. And the quality of those picks was even more impressive than the quantity, course-correcting the Supreme Court and much of the rest of the federal judiciary after years of rootless activism.
Because Trump begins this term with far fewer judicial <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judicial-nominations-update-73/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vacancies</a> than he faced eight years ago, his second-term totals are unlikely to match those of his first, but he is nonetheless <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-judicial-appointment-train-is-leaving-the-station/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">on track</a> to close out eight years with more judicial appointments than any other president. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) recently <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/05/07/confirming-trumps-court-nominees-is-priority-judiciary-committee-sen-lee-says/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> that judicial nominations will be a “big priority” for the Judiciary Committee, which suggests the senators also recognize how key judges are, and time is of the essence to confirm as many judges as possible while Republicans control the Senate.
Hermandorfer’s hearing before the committee will be <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/05/13/grassley-senate-republicans-trump-judges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scheduled</a> for June 4th, setting her up for potential confirmation before the August recess.
Liberal dark money groups like the Alliance for Justice know very well that a president’s judicial appointments have an impact that lasts much longer than his term. While presidents come and go, federal judges serve for life. President Trump has the opportunity to bolster what could be his most enduring legacy with his second-term judicial appointments. He’s off to a great start.
Carrie Severino is the president of JCN and co-author of the bestselling book Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Court.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP

Trump Is Off To a Great Start On Judicial Nominees

Brett Kavanaugh

Judiciary

The Trump administration is &#8220;actively&#8221; considering suspending habeas corpus as it seeks to continue its mass deportation efforts that are being hindered by federal judges.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said on Friday that the Constitution makes it &#8220;clear&#8221; that the writ of habeas corpus, which allows a person to petition a court to review the legality of their detention, can be &#8220;suspended in a time of invasion.&#8221;
“So, it’s an option we’re actively looking at,&#8221; Miller said, adding that &#8220;it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.”
Multiple federal judges have stopped Trump from carrying out his deportation agenda by blocking the administration&#8217;s use of the Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration was using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport Venezuelan illegal immigrants that it said were violent criminals and gang members. The president <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114466868060900843" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blasted</a> &#8220;activist judges&#8221; on Wednesday, calling on them to allow the deportation of &#8220;murderers, and other criminals who have come into our Country illegally, WITHOUT DELAY!!!
&#8220;Our Court System is not letting me do the job I was Elected to do,&#8221; Trump added.
Miller also argued on Friday that the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was passed by Congress in 1965, strips the judicial branch&#8217;s jurisdiction &#8220;from overruling a presidential determination or a secretarial determination on TPS [temporary protected status].&#8221;
&#8220;So when Secretary [Kristi] Noem terminated TPS for the illegals that Biden flew into the country, when the courts stepped in, they were violating explicit language that Congress had enacted. &#8230; So the courts aren’t just at war with the executive branch, the courts are at war — these radical, rogue judges — with the legislative branch as well. So all of that will inform the choices the president ultimately makes,&#8221; Miller said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Stephen Miller says the White House is looking into suspending habeas corpus, which protects people from unlawful detentions: &quot;A lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/AZLhFy79oZ">pic.twitter.com/AZLhFy79oZ</a>
&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1920911944866808017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 9, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If the White House attempts to suspend habeas corpus by arguing that the United States is being invaded, the move would likely be challenged, creating another battle between the courts and the president. Habeas corpus has been <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/763" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suspended</a> four times throughout U.S. history. The first time was during the Civil War, and then again during Reconstruction while the federal government was going after the Ku Klux Klan. It was also suspended in the Philippines in 1905 during an insurrection and in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Trump rebuffed an order from Judge James Boasberg on March 15 after the judge said the administration must return deportation flights carrying Venezuelans to El Salvador. The deportation fight eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court, which blocked Trump from deporting suspected Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act &#8220;until further order of this Court.&#8221;

Stephen Miller

Stephen Miller: White House ‘Actively Looking At’ Suspending Habeas Corpus Over Border ‘Invasion’

Deportations

Illegal Immigation

Trump Administration

On Tuesday, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) declined to rule out impeaching federal judges in this session of Congress, although he emphasized the &#8220;very high burden&#8221; required for such a significant course of action.
Johnson clarified his position as House GOP leadership has faced pressure from some Republican lawmakers and President Donald Trump, who have pushed for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/impeachathon-ensnares-growing-number-of-get-trump-judges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">impeaching</a> or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/proposal-remove-judge-blocked-trump-deportation-flights-without-impeachment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">otherwise</a> trying to remove judges who have ruled against the current administration&#8217;s policies over the view that they are acting as leftist activists.
&#8220;Look, impeachments are never off the table if it&#8217;s merited. But in our system, we&#8217;ve had 15 federal judges impeached in the entire history of the country,&#8221; Johnson said in response to a reporter&#8217;s question during a press conference on Capitol Hill. &#8220;I mean, there may be some that I feel merit that, but you’ve got to get the votes for it, right? And it&#8217;s a very high burden. And, frankly, the bar is high crimes and misdemeanors.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Q: &#8220;Are judicial impeachments off the table for the rest of this Congress?&#8221;
.<a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerJohnson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SpeakerJohnson</a>: &#8220;No. Impeachments are never off the table if it&#8217;s merited.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/FSYwxzIjXF">pic.twitter.com/FSYwxzIjXF</a>
— CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1919765710466584992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Johnson noted how difficult it would be for the Senate to agree on conviction — which would result in removal from office — given that it requires a two-thirds majority. Republicans have only a slim, 53-seat majority in the upper chamber, and Democrats and the independents who caucus with them likely would oppose any such effort.
&#8220;Even if we could get an impeachment article through the House on a federal judge, it&#8217;s unlikely that they would be tried and convicted in the Senate on that, with the divided number we have,&#8221; he said. &#8220;So, short of that, what can we do?&#8221;
Johnson highlighted legislation from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), which aims to restrict federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, as a means to curb judicial activism or venue shopping. The bill, named the &#8220;No Rogue Rulings Act,&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-curb-nationwide-injunctions-anti-trump-judges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed</a> through the House last month, but has yet to be taken up by the Senate.
&#8220;Darrell Issa&#8217;s bill is a great response. The &#8216;No Rogue Rulings Act&#8217; would prohibit a single individual judgment issuing a nationwide injunction like that to stop the entire policy of an administration,&#8221; Johnson said. &#8220;We passed it through the House, we sent it to the Senate with every expectation that they should be able to take that up. And I certainly hope they can, because, again, shouldn&#8217;t be a partisan issue.&#8221;

Menu