President Donald Trump announced early Sunday evening that he was directing his administration to rebuild and reopen the notorious island prison Alcatraz, located just over a mile off the California coast near San Francisco.
Trump delivered the announcement in a post to his Truth Social platform, saying in part that he wanted to use the prison — once it was renovated and expanded — to help house criminal illegal aliens if the Democrats&#8217; carefully-shopped district court judges continue to block his efforts to deport them.
&#8220;REBUILD, AND OPEN ALCATRAZ!&#8221; Trump&#8217;s post began. &#8220;For too long, America has been plagued by vicious, violent, and repeat Criminal Offenders, the dregs of society, who will never contribute anything other than Misery and Suffering.&#8221;
&#8220;When we were a more serious Nation, in times past, we did not hesitate to lock up the most dangerous criminals, and keep them far away from anyone they could harm. That’s the way it’s supposed to be,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;No longer will we tolerate these Serial Offenders who spread filth, bloodshed, and mayhem on our streets. That is why, today, I am directing the Bureau of Prisons, together with the Department of Justice, FBI, and Homeland Security, to reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt ALCATRAZ, to house America’s most ruthless and violent Offenders.&#8221;
&#8220;We will no longer be held hostage to criminals, thugs, and Judges that are afraid to do their job and allow us to remove criminals, who came into our Country illegally,&#8221; Trump concluded. &#8220;The reopening of ALCATRAZ will serve as a symbol of Law, Order, and JUSTICE. We will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<a href="https://t.co/3g4G1rHNQn">pic.twitter.com/3g4G1rHNQn</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1919167527466266857?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 4, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Trump followed that with a photo of the island prison — known as &#8220;The Rock&#8221; — in its heyday.
The United States gained control of <a href="https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/gsa-regions/region-9-pacific-rim/region-9-newsroom/feature-stories/the-captivating-history-of-alcatraz-island-from-military-fort-to-national-historic-landmark-05182020" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alcatraz</a> in 1848, and it was initially commissioned as a military installation by President Millard Fillmore. The construction of Fort Alcatraz was completed by 1858, and for 76 years, it was used primarily to house prisoners of war. From 1910 to 1912, prisoners rebuilt the entire prison — which was initially constructed out of wood — in concrete, at which point it was renamed &#8220;the Pacific Branch, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks for the U.S. Army.&#8221;
In 1933, the prison was transferred from the military to the Federal Bureau of Prisons — and from 1934-1963, &#8220;The Rock&#8221; was home to worst of the worst. Al Capone, “the Birdman of Alcatraz” (Robert Franklin Stroud), and George “Machinegun” Kelly were among those who spent time behind its walls.
In the 29 years that it was a functioning federal prison, 34 inmates attempted to escape. Of those, six were shot, 23 were captured, and 2 were confirmed to have drowned in the attempt. Five more were lost at sea and presumed to have drowned. Only one prisoner — John Paul Scott, in 1962 — successfully completed the swim to shore, but he collapsed under the Golden Gate Bridge due to hypothermia and was quickly recaptured.
President John F. Kennedy closed Alcatraz in 1963, arguing that it was too expensive to keep it open.

Alcatraz Island in San Francisco

Trump Announces Plan To ‘REBUILD And OPEN’ Notorious Prison In Bid To Undercut Activist Judges

Trump Announces Plan To 'REBUILD And OPEN' Notorious Prison In Bid To Undercut Activist Judges

Donald Trump

Illegal Immigration

Judges

Politics

Prison

From blocking deportations of gang members to keeping men in women&#8217;s prisons, activist judges have taken up the mantle of leftist resistance during the first 100 days of President Donald Trump&#8217;s second term.
Trump opened his second administration with a rapid series of executive orders aimed at reducing the size of government and addressing the crises spurred on by the Biden administration. Judges responded by issuing a record number of national injunctions blocking those orders. These injunctions have touched nearly every aspect of Trump&#8217;s agenda, leading conservatives to call for action from Congress and the Supreme Court to rein in activist judges.
&#8220;Over 77 million people decided to elect Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States,&#8221; South Carolina Republican Rep. Russell Fry, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, told The Daily Wire. &#8220;And the frustrating part of that is that in pursuing the policies that he campaigned on you got radical district court judges, who are not elected, who are not on a court of appeals or the Supreme Court, who are superseding the authority of the executive branch and imposing their own partisan views on this administration.&#8221;
Here are just a few of the orders federal judges issued to disrupt Trump&#8217;s agenda:
<ul>
<li>Judge Royce Lamberth blocked the dismantling of the United States Agency for Global Media.</li>
<li>Judge Indira Talwani said Trump could not end President Joe Biden&#8217;s parole program that let 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela into the country.</li>
<li>Judge John Woodcock Jr. said that the Department of Agriculture could not freeze funding to Maine over its decision to let boys play in girls&#8217; sports.</li>
<li>Judge Edward Chen said the Department of Homeland Security could not revoke the protected status of 348,202 Venezuelans who were shielded from deportation by Biden.</li>
<li>Judge Stephanie Gallagher said the Trump administration must facilitate the return of a suspected gang member from El Salvador who was deported.</li>
<li>Judge William H. Orrick said Trump could not pull funding from sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration law.</li>
<li>Judge Royce Lamberth said the Trump administration was not allowed to move male prisoners who identify as women from female prisons.</li>
<li>Judges Benjamin Settle and Ana Reyes said the Defense Department had to allow people who identify as transgender in the military.</li>
<li>Judge James Boasberg said Trump could not deport gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.</li>
<li>Judge Paula Xinis said Trump must return suspected MS-13 member Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States.</li>
<li>Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said Trump could not implement an executive order that requires voters to show documentation proving their U.S. citizenship to cast a ballot in federal elections.</li>
<li>Judge Amir Ali said the Trump administration could not put a blanket pause on foreign aid funding.</li>
</ul>
Many of the judges issuing these rulings have strong ties to the Democratic Party. For example, Judge Indira Talwani has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-who-prevented-trumps-deportation-of-500k-migrants-volunteered-for-obama-elizabeth-warren?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=13&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Judge+Who+Prevented+Trump’s+Deportation+Of+500k+Migrants+Volunteered+For+Obama%2C+Elizabeth+Warren" target="_blank" rel="noopener">volunteered</a> for and donated to prominent Democrat politicians, including former President Barack Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA). She blocked Trump&#8217;s efforts to revoke the temporary legal status of half a million migrants.
Judge Patricia Millett, who upheld the injunction blocking the Trump administration’s expedited removal of Tren de Aragua gang members,<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-who-upheld-block-of-trumps-deportation-flights-is-a-major-dem-donor?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Judge+Who+Upheld+Block+Of+Trump’s+Deportation+Flights+Is+A+Major+Dem+Donor" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> both donated to</a> and volunteered for Obama’s presidential campaign. She gave more than $31,000 to Democrat politicians and the party itself from 2008 to 2012.
Judge James Boasberg, who has threatened the Trump administration over its use of the Alien Enemies Act for Deportation, has a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/meet-the-obama-appointed-judge-trying-to-stop-trump-from-deporting-criminal-illegals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">history</a> of anti-Trump rulings. His wife, Elizabeth Manson, has also been involved in partisan political activity and donated over $11,000 to Democratic candidates, <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Elizabeth+Manson">federal data</a> shows. Manson gave a combined $3,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and Hillary for America when the Democratic candidate was facing off against Trump in the 2016 election.
Rep. Fry told The Daily Wire that the judicial rulings pertaining to national security decisions were particularly troubling.
&#8220;Courts have been very hesitant to supersede the commander in chief authority of the president historically, until it comes to this president when you&#8217;ve got district court judges that think they know best,&#8221; he said.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Wire he believes many of the federal judges issuing injunctions against the Trump administration were &#8220;going far outside their jurisdiction and far outside their authority.&#8221;
He noted that a similar phenomenon took place during the first Trump administration, saying that the vast majority of the decisions were coming from judges appointed by Democrats. Von Spakovsky said that the ruling from Judge Ana Reyes mandating that transgender troops be kept in the military was especially egregious.
“I don’t think she’s qualified to be a federal judge given the vindictiveness and illogic of the decision that she issued,&#8221; he said. &#8220;She has no military experience whatsoever and yet she is telling the Department of Defense what their standards should be for us to have the most effective, most dangerous warriors in the world.”
Both Fry and von Spakovsky urged the Senate to pass Rep. Darrell Issa&#8217;s (R-CA) &#8220;No Rogue Rulings Act,&#8221; which would amend federal code to block solo federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. The proposal, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-curb-nationwide-injunctions-anti-trump-judges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed</a> the House earlier this month, is now in the Republican-controlled Senate.
The proposal would allow for injunctions from a panel of three randomly-selected judges when the overarching case is brought by two or more states in multiple circuits and make room for appealing directly to the Supreme Court.
Fry said the No Rogue Rulings Act was a good first step, but that lawmakers should also look for other ways to practice oversight over the courts and look at utilizing the power of the purse. He also said he hoped Chief Justice John Roberts would act to rein in the courts.
Von Spakovsky said the court should issue guidelines to make clear that the power of district court judges is limited.
“The Supreme Court needs to act,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The next time they get a case before them with one of these nationwide injunctions issued by a single district court judge, they need to come down severely and very hard on that judge, explain to him why he or she is acting outside of their legal authority and jurisdiction, and frankly, put in some very tough, clear rules to tell these judges that they cannot do what they are doing.”
The Trump administration has already asked the Supreme Court to intervene in multiple battles with federal judges.
“This is no way to run a government,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/doj-asks-supreme-court-to-end-ongoing-assault-on-constitution-by-federal-judge?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=DOJ+Asks+Supreme+Court+To+End+‘Ongoing+Assault’+On+Constitution+By+Federal+Judge" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in a brief last month. “This Court should stop the ongoing assault on the constitutional structure before further damage is wrought.”

Untitled design (25)

Here’s How Activist Judges Fought Trump’s Agenda In The First 100 Days

Courts

Supreme Court

Protestors Rally In Milwaukee After Judge’s Arrest By The FBI

The Trump Admin Arrests Dangerous, Power-Hungry Judge And The Media Has A Total Meltdown

Crime

Democrats

gangs

Leftists

Legacy Media

Liberals

Matt Walsh

Milwaukee

Opinion

President Trump

Wisconsin

Speaking on MSNBC over the weekend, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) railed against President Donald Trump and his administration, saying they were “trying to intimidate judges.”
Schumer spoke as the two discussed the case of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, whom the Trump administration charged with two felonies for obstructing immigration agents. In mid-April, when immigration, DEA. and FBI agents came to apprehend Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal in Dugan’s courtroom to face domestic violence charges — and Dugan had been notified that there was an administrative warrant for the Flores-Ruiz’s arrest — “Judge Dugan then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the ‘jury door,’ which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse,” the<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/25/us/politics/fbi-arrest-judge.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> criminal complaint</a> stated.
“Trump wants to be king,” Schumer whined to MSNBC host Al Sharpton. “A king doesn’t have a Constitution. A king just does whatever he wants. And [Attorney General Pam] Biondi (sic) just goes along with him. They’re trying to intimidate judges. This is not the first time or the second. They’ve said they want to impeach judges. They said they’re going to go after judges who don’t agree with them. That is so against the Constitution. The Constitution believes and has been written with the wisdom of the founding fathers, that we should have separation of powers.”
“There should be an independent judiciary,” he continued. “When you go before a judge, you think that you hope and believe that that judge is impartial. What Trump, Biondi (sic), and the whole Justice Department are trying to do is push that judge, threaten that judge, so the judge is no longer impartial. &#8230; I don’t believe ICE or anything they say, because they’ve made up things so many times in the past. This is a constitutional crisis. You cannot have a — you cannot have a democracy without an independent judiciary. And they’re trying to clip the wings of that independence.”
Schumer’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. In March 2020, he threatened conservative members of the Supreme Court for considering abortion rights cases, shouting at an abortion rights rally:
<blockquote>Inside the walls of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion rights cases since Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch came to the bench. &#8230; I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.</blockquote>
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), who was critically injured when shot by a Bernie Sanders supporter, called Schumer&#8217;s comments “unhinged,&#8221; adding, &#8220;This rhetoric has dangerous consequences.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨 UNHINGED → Schumer threatened conservative justices Kavanaugh &amp; Gorsuch on the steps of the Supreme Court:
&quot;You have released the whirlwind &amp; you will pay the price. You won&#39;t know what hit you.&quot;
Enough. This rhetoric has dangerous consequences. Where&#39;s the media outrage? <a href="https://t.co/SiGNHxG0iX">pic.twitter.com/SiGNHxG0iX</a>
&mdash; Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1235299202542063616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
2025: Chuck Schumer says Trump wants to intimidate and threaten judges.
2020: Chuck Schumer tries to intimidate and threaten Justices of the Supreme Court. <a href="https://t.co/FdisnZKk0I">pic.twitter.com/FdisnZKk0I</a>
&mdash; Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1916594680260968939?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 27, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer

Hypocrite: Schumer Wails Trump ‘Trying To Intimidate Judges.’ He Threatened SCOTUS In 2020.

Chuck Schumer

Immigration

It’s hard to keep track of all the immigration cases that blew up once President Trump started securing our borders and enforcing U.S. immigration law only three months ago.
The latest <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25897170-chnvparole041425/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decision</a> by Massachusetts District Court judge Indira Talwani was an unjustified and baseless nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s decision last month to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-pulling-legal-status-more-than-530k-migrants" target="_blank" rel="noopener">end the parole status</a> for half a million Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan nationals.
Nationwide injunctions by federal judges are based on dubious authority and threaten the separation of powers doctrine in the Constitution – the checks and balances that hold this nation together. The sooner Congress and the Supreme Court implement and enforce clear limits on this, the better.
But it’s not just the sweeping executive power that Judge Talwani, an Obama appointee, asserts is the problem. It’s also the bewildering double-standard applied to the Biden and Trump administrations on immigration.
Americans want to believe that once appointed, judges do their best to follow the Constitution and the law. But it gets harder each time we see a ruling that stretches logic and law to reach a conclusion that aligns with politics. We’ve seen so many in the past few years, including the many “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/video/series/wonder-land-henninger/wsj-opinion-the-high-price-of-democrats-anti-trump-lawfare/04D0426F-2196-433D-B6FF-56BCA3688D79?mod=bizbuysell_trending_now_video_pos1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawfare</a>” cases brought against President Trump since his first term.
Let’s get our heads around immigration parole. Aliens who want to come to the U.S. need a visa. In exceptional cases, Congress provided a <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1182&amp;num=0&amp;edition=prelim" target="_blank" rel="noopener">limited power</a> for the executive (exercised by the President through his Secretary of Homeland Security) to parole aliens for limited periods. When that period ends, they go back to whatever status they had before.
In 1996, Congress tightened the rules, clarifying that parole could only be granted on a “case-by-case basis,” and strictly “for urgent humanitarian reasons” or a “significant public benefit.” Parole isn’t a path to permanent status.
Blatantly violating the clear limits set by Congress, Biden perverted parole to invent a slew of “McVisa” programs to benefit groups he liked and to bypass numerical caps.
Biden’s DHS started paroling illegal aliens caught at the border, arguing that they didn’t have room to detain them. This <a href="https://cis.org/Arthur/Federal-Judge-Vacates-Bidens-ParoleATD-Border-Release-Policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“Parole+ATD”</a> was shut down by a federal judge who <a href="https://legacy.myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/GPEY-CPQPAB/%24file/final%20order.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> the president didn’t have the authority to give illegal aliens a free pass into the country.
In August 2021, Biden invented Operation Allies Welcome to let in thousands of Afghans. In theory, these were supposed to be the ones who’d helped the U.S. and whose lives might be in danger under the Taliban, but in practice, many got in through fraud or had nothing to do with our efforts in their country. Some were even criminals and suspected terrorists.
Then in April 2022, Biden <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/ukraine" target="_blank" rel="noopener">began</a> a Uniting for Ukraine program to bring people in from that country, even though (a) you might wonder why the men weren’t home fighting Russia, and (b) why they could not have claimed asylum in neighboring European countries instead of the U.S.
In January 2023, Biden <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/05/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-border-enforcement-actions/">rolled out</a> a Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan Parole program allowing up to 30,000 nationals from those four countries per month to enter the U.S.
Then he added up to 1,400 appointments a day for nationals of any country to schedule their illegal entry into the U.S. using the <a href="https://cis.org/Arthur/Whats-Biden-Doing-Migrants-Ports-Entry">CBP One</a> phone app, as long as they claimed to be in Mexico. Nearly all of them ended up getting <a href="https://cis.org/Arthur/958-Percent-Illegal-Migrants-Who-Preschedule-Their-Illegal-Entries-Are-Allowed">paroled</a> once they showed up at a U.S. port of entry.
Finally, in June 2024, Biden tried but failed to give a de facto amnesty via parole to over a million illegal aliens who were married to American citizens. Who knows how far a “President Harris” could have continued with parole-a-palooza, had she won.
All told, Biden used bogus parole programs to bring in over 1.5 million inadmissible illegal aliens.
Even though the law specifically says a president can’t use parole to bypass the U.S. official refugee program, that was clearly the intent. The Biden administration expected them all to claim asylum and live here while their cases dragged on for years or decades. But not all of them bothered to make that claim, figuring parole would just be extended. Bad bet.
Trump revoked the CHNV parole – as was his rightful power as president – in March. What Biden did, even if it wasn’t right, Trump had the power to undo.
For Judge Talwani to now tell Trump he can’t revoke parole for 530,000 paroled CHNV nationals without a “case-by-case” review is rich indeed. Does she seriously think that every one of the 30,000 CHNV applicants Biden let in per month was examined and approved on a “case-by-case” basis? Sure, if we say every fan let into Yankee Stadium for a game has been admitted “case-by-case.” If it simply means ‘one-by-one’, then Secretary of Homeland Security Noem can certify that, and it will be just as true as it was when former Secretary Mayorkas did.
Federal immigration law is very clear that the president has wide discretion to deny or revoke visas and remove aliens on national security or discretionary grounds. He can do or undo parole as well.
Joe Biden violated the law when he provided mass parole to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. No judge should be able to stop a successor president from undoing the harm a prior president has done, particularly harm that was done by ignoring, twisting, and breaking the law.
* * *
Simon Hankinson is a Senior Research Fellow in the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

White House Homeland Security Advisor And Deputy Chief Of Staff Stephen Miller Speaks To The Media At The White House

Liberal Judge Tries To Block Trump Over Bogus Biden-Era Parole For Countless Illegals

Biden Administration

Constitution

Heritage Foundation

illegal immigrants

Massachusetts

Migrants

Obama Administration

Venezuela

On Wednesday, the GOP-led House passed a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-to-vote-on-restraining-nationwide-injunctions-stop-judicial-overreach-against-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bill</a> that would restrict federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that have blocked elements of President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda.
The &#8220;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1526/text" target="_blank" rel="noopener">No Rogue Rulings Act</a>&#8221; prevailed largely along party lines, with 219 Republicans and no Democrats voting for the measure. A single GOP lawmaker, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/speaker-johnson-removes-mike-turner-as-house-intel-committee-chairman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH)</a>, joined with 212 Democrats in voting against it. One member did not vote.
&#8220;Democrats insist there is a constitutional crisis just because they don’t like President Trump’s policies,&#8221; House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) <a href="https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1909360904652870140" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a post on X this week. &#8220;The actual crisis is activist judges trying to single-handedly stop the President’s agenda.&#8221;
The bill, which now heads to the Republican-controlled Senate, seeks to amend U.S. Code to prevent district courts from issuing injunctions unless the order applies only to the parties of the particular case at hand.
Before <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/markups/markup-hr-1789-hr-1526-hr-1702-and-hr-1605" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passing</a> out of the House Judiciary Committee last month, the bill was <a href="https://issa.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/issa.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/hr1526-updated-norra.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">amended</a> to allow for an injunction from a panel of three randomly-selected judges when the overarching case is brought by two or more states in multiple circuits and make room for appealing to the Supreme Court.
If the legislation makes it to Trump&#8217;s desk in its current form, his advisers would recommend that he sign it, <a href="https://x.com/repdarrellissa/status/1909995329363095831" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to</a> a statement of administration policy from the White House.
&#8220;This bill is consistent with this Administration&#8217;s commitment to preserving the separation of powers enshrined in our constitution,&#8221; the statement said.
Federal judges have issued numerous injunctions in the first few months of the new Trump administration, including orders that have stalled the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative and temporarily <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/congressman-introduces-articles-of-impeachment-against-judge-blocking-trump-deportations?topStoryPosition=undefined" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prevented</a> the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, as legal battles over federal actions play out in court.
Many GOP lawmakers argue that nationwide injunctions have been exploited to stall Trump&#8217;s executive actions and initiatives.
&#8220;Left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges who they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives&#8221; from the Trump administration, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who introduced the bill, said during House floor debate on Tuesday.
&#8220;Proof of that occurred just yesterday,&#8221; Issa added, referring to a Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-greenlights-trumps-use-of-1798-law-to-deport-foreign-gang-members" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a> that lifted the hold U.S. District Judge James Boasberg placed on deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.
Democrats claim that Issa&#8217;s bill allows the Trump administration to bypass legal boundaries rather than restricting overreaching judges.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) called the legislation a &#8220;dangerous threat to the rule of law&#8221; that &#8220;is not intended to curtail rogue judges from issuing rogue rulings,&#8221; but rather to &#8220;enable a rogue administration to continue to violate the law.&#8221;
Although some Republican lawmakers and Trump have advocated for impeaching 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 president&#8217;s policies, GOP leadership in the House have so far stuck to a legislative response and hearings.
There has been movement in the upper chamber, too.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) unveiled another <a href="https://www.hawley.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hawley-Nationwide-Injunction-Abuse-Prevent-Act-of-2025-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bill</a> that would amend U.S. Code to &#8220;limit the authority of district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief.&#8221; That legislation aims &#8220;to STOP liberal judges’ serial abuse of their power by BANNING nationwide injunctions,&#8221; Hawley <a href="https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1904223820237439247" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
A final House vote on Issa&#8217;s bill was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-to-vote-on-restraining-nationwide-injunctions-stop-judicial-overreach-against-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">expected</a> last week, but it was delayed until Johnson <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/speaker-johnson-makes-a-deal-with-luna-over-proxy-voting-rules-for-new-parents" target="_blank" rel="noopener">resolved</a> a proxy voting dispute.

Speaker Mike Johnson speaks with Trump in the background

House Votes To Curb Nationwide Injunctions, Rein In Anti-Trump ‘Activist Judges’

Congress

U.S.

U.S. House of Representatives

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-VANCE-BORDER

Prison First, Deportation Later: Trump Revives Criminal Penalties For Border Jumpers

Border Crisis

Court

Del Rio

Illegal Immigation

Investigation

Mexico

Southern Border

Texas

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) called out judicial activists during a Monday Fox News appearance, arguing that the district court judges attempting to rein in President Donald Trump were stepping outside their prescribed authority and &#8220;taking it upon themselves to usurp really important power.&#8221;
Schmitt joined anchor Harris Faulkner on &#8220;The Faulkner Focus&#8221; to discuss the growing number of district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump&#8217;s executive actions, and he predicted that ultimately, the Supreme Court was likely to side with the president.
Schmitt began by describing the situation as a 21st century phenomenon and noting that previous presidents really had not been faced with this particular challenge.
&#8220;In the first — less than 100 days of President Trump&#8217;s administration here, you&#8217;ve seen more injunctions than the 12 years between Obama&#8217;s two terms and Joe Biden, so these judges are more than willing to play an outsized role beyond their Article III authority.&#8221;
Schmitt noted that there was legislation in progress that would clarify beyond question that a district court judge&#8217;s power would only extend to the parties involved — and that the Trump administration was already fighting those injunctions that had already been issued.
&#8220;As these cases make their way up to the Supreme Court, President Trump is going to be successful because he&#8217;s either operating as Commander-in-Chief — or controlling the programming and personnel of the Article II branch.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Sen. <a href="https://twitter.com/Eric_Schmitt?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Eric_Schmitt</a>: &quot;These judges are more than willing to play an outsized role beyond their Article III authority&#8230; As these cases make their way up to the Supreme Court, President Trump is going to be successful because he&#39;s either operating as Commander-in-Chief &#8212; or… <a href="https://t.co/J5FE4xxOeK">pic.twitter.com/J5FE4xxOeK</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1909267090432733335?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Schmitt went on to accuse the judges of effectively usurping the president&#8217;s legitimate authority when they used blanket injunctions to try to stop him from deporting criminal illegal aliens.
&#8220;I think a lot of these judges are taking it upon themselves to usurp really important power,&#8221; he said. &#8220;For example, when President Trump declared a predatory incursion of these criminal violent gangs, he&#8217;s well within his Article II executive power to deport them. He can do that. The judge, by stepping in there — Judge Boasberg, by stepping in the case that we&#8217;re talking about &#8230; that is like that judge dictating missile strikes or deciding troop movements. Those are national security issues.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Senator <a href="https://twitter.com/Eric_Schmitt?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Eric_Schmitt</a>: &quot;I think a lot of these judges are taking it upon themselves to usurp really important power&#8230; when <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> declared a predatory incursion of these criminal violent gangs, he&#39;s well within his Article II executive power to deport them.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/Nb3UlEkeYf">pic.twitter.com/Nb3UlEkeYf</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1909267307680915663?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Schmitt concluded with the assessment that Trump was on &#8220;firm ground&#8221; when it came to those cases reaching the Supreme Court, but he said that it was also important to continue to address the judicial overreach legislatively.

The 2024 Republican National Convention

Missouri Sen. Torches Activist Judges For Overreach: They ‘Usurp Really Important Power’

Eric Schmitt

Executive

Lawfare

On Sunday, Attorney General Pam Bondi rejected claims that President Donald Trump is causing a constitutional crisis with his second-term executive actions, which are facing numerous legal challenges.
&#8220;The president is going to comply with the law,&#8221; Bondi <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/video/6371135377112" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> Fox News Sunday anchor Shannon Bream, who asked if there was any &#8220;scenario&#8221; in which Trump would not comply with an order or final judgment from the Supreme Court.
&#8220;Since January 20th, we&#8217;ve had over 170 lawsuits filed against us. That should be the constitutional crisis right there,&#8221; Bondi stated. &#8220;Fifty injunctions, they&#8217;re popping up every single day, trying to control his executive power, trying to control where he believes our tax dollars should be allocated.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AGPamBondi</a>: The real constitutional crisis is the 50 injunctions filed against President Trump by individual, low-level leftist judges who are trying to dictate President Trump&#39;s executive powers. <a href="https://t.co/EqHMhjzg7K">pic.twitter.com/EqHMhjzg7K</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1908885035815448728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The interview began with a clip of Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, suggesting that a president clashing with the Supreme Court could trigger a constitutional crisis. Bream pointed out that some critics frequently use that phrase amid the surge of lawsuits against the Trump administration.
Bondi highlighted Trump’s 2024 election victory and his efforts to fulfill promises made on the campaign trail.
&#8220;He&#8217;s implementing that agenda at a rapid speed. None of us can keep up with him every single day,&#8221; she said. &#8220;And so it&#8217;s just we&#8217;re going after all of these lawsuits. We&#8217;re defending them all. We just got a great win. And we&#8217;ll continue to fight every day.&#8221;
Bondi was alluding to a recent Supreme Court <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/us/supreme-court-trump-teacher-grants.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decision</a> that, by a 5-4 vote, permitted Trump to temporarily suspend about $65 million in teacher training grants linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
&#8220;You did. Friday night, 5-4 at the Supreme Court. You got a win with respect to cuts at the Department of Education,&#8221; Bream responded.
&#8220;But the court did go against you on issues of foreign aid being paid out,&#8221; she added, referring to a different <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-upholds-judges-order-that-trump-promptly-pay-foreign-aid-groups-2025-03-05/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">case</a>. &#8220;How do you think these issues of executive power, when they get to the court, ultimately on the merits, will go? Because you know the court has told executives no when it comes to things like student loans or recess appointments.&#8221;
Bondi expressed optimism, stating, &#8220;We&#8217;re going to be very successful on all of these,&#8221; despite the relentless legal battles.
&#8220;To give you an example of a case, Department of Defense. So we had its military readiness. And that&#8217;s one of the president&#8217;s top agendas as is [Defense Secretary] Pete Hegseth,&#8221; she said. &#8220;So in the district court, a district court in D.C. ruled against us on military readiness, meaning gender dysphoria, ruled against us. We appealed that to the circuit court and we won. The second we won, within minutes, Shannon, in California, they filed an identical lawsuit and we lost. So that&#8217;s what we&#8217;re up against.&#8221;
Bondi continued: &#8220;It&#8217;s basically a game of whack-a-mole with these district court judges around the country who have a tremendous amount of power. They believe they do. But that&#8217;s why we&#8217;re appealing all of these cases, of course, up to the Supreme Court.&#8221;

US Attorney General Pam Bondi

Bondi Says The Real ‘Constitutional Crisis’ Is Judicial Lawfare, Not Trump Exec Actions

Department of Justice

Pam Bondi

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) delivered a quick fact-check to Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) during a Tuesday hearing, using her own previous actions to discredit her current position on the impeachment of judges.
Crockett, along with several other Democrats, used her time during the committee hearing to complain that democracy itself would be left in shambles if Republicans were to succeed in impeaching any of the judges who have unilaterally blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from taking certain actions.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🔥Jasmine Crockett starts HYPERVENTILATING about protecting the institution of the judiciary — before PROMPTLY being reminded by <a href="https://twitter.com/repdarrellissa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@repdarrellissa</a> that she cosponsored legislation to impeach Justices Thomas &amp; Alito!
&quot;AOC filed articles of impeachment on Justice Thomas &amp; Alito.… <a href="https://t.co/lQZwj3tAWT">pic.twitter.com/lQZwj3tAWT</a>
&mdash; Townhall.com (@townhallcom) <a href="https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1907134854317142079?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“The problem that we have right now is that if we continue down this road, we will not have a rule of law because we have people that are currently serving and they’re saying things like, ‘Ignore the judge’s order.’”
Making no mention of the fact that President Joe Biden had done exactly that when he pushed ahead with student loan forgiveness despite a Supreme Court decision stating that he did not have the authority to do so, Crockett continued.
“What it means to have law and order in this country is that you follow the order and you go through the appeals process even if you dislike what the judge did,” Crockett said before yielding back her time.
She relied, as have other Democrats and media talking heads alike, on the narrative claiming that Republicans wanted to impeach the federal judges over rulings they “did not like” — despite the fact that the reasoning given by those calling for impeachment is rooted instead in those judges’ alleged abuses of power.
Issa stepped in briefly then, observing that when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) had introduced articles of impeachment against conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, Crockett herself had co-sponsored the move.
“It does seem interesting that when the shoe is on the other foot, everyone is self-righteous!” Issa said before moving on to the next agenda item.

House Oversight And Accountability Members And Watchdog Group Court Accountability Focus On Supreme Court Ethics

Darrell Issa Stops Crockett Cold With Real-Time Fact Check On Impeaching Judges

Clarence Thomas

Impeachment

Jasmine Crockett

Samuel Alito

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) is pushing appropriators to leverage upcoming funding legislation to put restraints on federal judges who have issued nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump&#8217;s policies.
With a <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2025-03-31-jdj-to-cole-joyce-approps%29-re-judicial-branch-appropriations.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> dated March 31, Jordan implored leaders on the Committee on Appropriations to use &#8220;Congress&#8217;s power of the purse&#8221; to crack down on what he described as the &#8220;abuse of nationwide injunctive authority&#8221; during the first 60 days of Trump&#8217;s second term and ensure &#8220;the federal judiciary can continue to operate effectively and responsibly with respect to its growing civil and criminal dockets.&#8221;
Federal judges have issued more than a dozen injunctions during the first couple months of the new Trump administration, including orders hindering the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) effort and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/congressman-introduces-articles-of-impeachment-against-judge-blocking-trump-deportations?topStoryPosition=undefined" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blocking</a> the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, as legal battles focused on federal government actions play out in court.
Jordan offered a number of &#8220;steps&#8221; that he argued &#8220;would reinforce the proper limits of judicial power and ensure that taxpayer resources support a judiciary that respects its constitutional role.&#8221;
He said: &#8220;In particular, we urge you to consider language prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars and federal resources to issue or enforce these overbroad injunctions beyond the specific parties in front of an issuing court in a particular case. Additionally, we ask that you consider including language to limit appropriated funds related to the issuance and enforcement of nationwide injunctions, including using court resources to compel compliance, impose fines, or conduct contempt proceedings related to such injunctions.&#8221;
Jordan also noted that his committee has &#8220;developed legislative reforms within our jurisdiction to address this misuse of judicial authority and to restore balance between the branches of the federal government.&#8221;
While some Republicans are rallying for impeaching judges 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 them, the House is expected to vote this week on the &#8220;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1526/text">No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025</a>,&#8221; legislation that seeks to amend U.S. Code to prevent district courts from issuing injunctions unless the order applies only to the parties of the particular case at hand.
Before <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/markups/markup-hr-1789-hr-1526-hr-1702-and-hr-1605" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passing</a> out the House Judiciary Committee last month, the bill was <a href="https://issa.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/issa.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/hr1526-updated-norra.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">amended</a> to allow for an injunction from a panel of three randomly selected judges when the overarching case is brought by two or more states in multiple circuits and make room for appealing to the Supreme Court.
The House Judiciary Committee held on Tuesday a hearing titled &#8220;Judicial Overreach and Constitutional Limits on the Federal Courts&#8221; in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) delivered an opening statement that <a href="https://x.com/DailySignal/status/1907115746355765452" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a>: &#8220;There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the judicial branch&#8217;s effort to fully override the legislative and executive branches.&#8221;
In a post on X, House Judiciary Democrats <a href="https://x.com/HouseJudiciary/status/1907113454676140216" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, &#8220;Trump keeps losing in court, so MAGA Republicans want to punish the judges instead of following the law.&#8221;

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)

Jim Jordan Seeks To Defund Nationwide Injunctions, Stop Anti-Trump ‘Abuse’

Jim Jordan

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) is set to warn lawmakers about a “potential judicial coup d’etat” during a congressional hearing about overreaching federal judges on Tuesday, according to prepared remarks obtained by The Daily Wire. 
Gingrich will appear at a joint hearing of two House Judiciary Committee subcommittees to testify about the American judicial system and possible remedies to the sweeping judicial orders that have blocked much of President Donald Trump’s agenda. From the firing of probationary workers to the deportations of suspected gang members, federal judges have issued a series of sweeping injunctions restricting the Trump administration’s actions. 
“There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the Judicial Branch’s effort to fully override the Legislative and Executive branches,” a draft of Gingrich’s remarks says. “Fifteen District Judges effectively seized control of various Executive Branch duties in the first six weeks of the current presidency through nationwide injunctions. This is potentially a judicial coup d’etat. It clearly violates the Constitution and more than 200 years of American history.”
Gingrich will appear alongside Heritage Foundation Legal Scholar Paul Larkin and Tren de Aragua victim Cindy Romero during the hearing, which will take place before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government and the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet.
In his prepared testimony, Gingrich notes that the 15 nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration since January 20, 2025, are already more than the six that were issued against George W. Bush, the 12 against Barack Obama, and the 14 against Joe Biden during their time in office. 
According to Gingrich, 92% of the injunctions against Trump have come at the hands of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. 
“The notion that unelected lawyers can micromanage the Executive Branch – and override a Commander in Chief who received 77.3 million votes – should trouble every American,” Gingrich writes.
The former House speaker will call for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to intervene and establish a rule that would require any nationwide injunction issued by a lower court to immediately go to Supreme Court review. 
Gingrich also urged the lawmakers to pass the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” a bill that would restrict judges to only issuing injunctions that apply to the specific parties of the case being heard. The bill was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who chairs the subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government alongside Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX). 
A copy of Larkin’s written statement obtained by The Daily Wire indicates that he will focus on the history of the courts in America and judicial practice. 
“The practice of entering nationwide injunctions against the federal government in any case not properly certified as a nationwide class action is both unlawful and Unwise,” a draft of Larkin’s remarks says. “Neither the Constitution, the Judicial Code, nor common-law principles of issue or claim preclusion authorizes a federal court to award relief to individuals who are not parties to a particular ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy.’”
The Trump administration has repeatedly requested the Supreme Court intervene in its battles against federal district court judges. So far, the court has been largely silent, except to reverse a court order instructing the administration to pay out $2 billion to foreign aid contractors.

Joint Address TW 2025

EXCLUSIVE: Newt Gingrich To Warn Lawmakers About ‘Coup d’État’ By Federal Judges

House Judiciary Committee

Newt Gingrich

Menu