President Donald Trump erupted on social media Tuesday, slamming the Supreme Court after it <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/09/supreme-court-denies-trump-administrations-request-to-implement-parts-of-usps-rule-on-mail-in-vo/">blocked his administration</a> from rolling out new restrictions on mail-in voting weeks before the November midterms.
In a Truth Social <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117275286602582454">post</a>, the president accused the justices of caving to political pressure, calling the ruling &#8220;a big loss for Republicans&#8221; and claiming the current court barely resembles the one he originally nominated. He praised Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, calling them &#8220;legends&#8221; for siding with his administration, while suggesting the rest of the court had let the country down.
&#8220;Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court, one that the Court System took forever to give, and then blamed it, in part, on no time left to implement a solution to our totally CORRUPT and out of control Mail-In voting &#8216;disaster,&#8217; which is a laughing stock all over the World, and where we are the only country that has to endure such a Nation Destroying SCAM,&#8221; Trump wrote.
Trump ripped Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, calling out their opposition to his policies on multiple rulings, including tariffs and birthright citizenship.
&#8220;These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves, a Court that is costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won’t be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;Certain Justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats, and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America,&#8221; Trump added.
Trump’s statement came after the Supreme Court, in a brief unsigned order issued Monday night, refused to let the U.S. Postal Service enforce a new rule tied to one of Trump&#8217;s executive orders, which would require states to hand over lists of eligible voters so USPS could verify them before delivering mail-in ballots. The rule also set strict design requirements for ballot envelopes. The justices left in place an injunction from a federal judge in Boston, who had blocked the rule from taking effect.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee who sided with the majority in this case, wrote separately to explain his reasoning. He said the Postal Service may ultimately have the legal authority to issue such a rule, but argued it would be unreasonable to force election officials to implement it this close to the midterms given how little time they&#8217;d have to prepare.
Justices Alito and Thomas dissented from the order, arguing the administration had done enough to justify blocking the lower court&#8217;s order and that the challengers bringing the case lacked enough legal standing.
In March, the president signed an executive order aimed at cracking down on alleged voter fraud tied to mail-in ballots. Two dozen mostly Democratic-led states, led by California, sued, arguing the order violated states&#8217; constitutional authority over how their elections are run.
After a federal judge sided with the states, the Supreme Court briefly let the administration move forward in late August on procedural grounds, before the judge blocked the USPS-specific rules again in early September.
That set up the latest showdown, which the administration lost.
For now, the November midterms will proceed without the new USPS mail-in voting restrictions, but the broader legal battle over the rule&#8217;s future is expected to continue in the lower courts.

SWITZERLAND-G7-US-TRUMP-POLITICS

Trump Unloads On His Own SCOTUS Picks After Mail-Ballot Defeat

2026 midterm election

brett kavanaugh

donald trump

mail in voting

politics

supreme court

The Supreme Court on Monday night kept President Donald Trump&#8217;s new mail-ballot rules on hold ahead of the November midterms.
The justices denied the Trump administration&#8217;s request to suspend a lower court injunction, leaving the rules blocked while litigation continues. States can continue mailing ballots under their current procedures.
In an unsigned 7-2 order, the court said that the government was &#8220;unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge&#8221; to the injunction and had failed to satisfy the other requirements for emergency relief.
The Postal Service&#8217;s rule would require states to use ballot envelopes with an election-mail logo, machine-scannable features, and a barcode unique to each voter. Election officials would also have to submit envelope designs for approval and upload voters&#8217; names and addresses to a federal portal. The Postal Service could reject noncompliant mailings and return them to election officials.
The administration said the Postal Service had authority to impose the requirements, while election officials warned that implementing them weeks before the midterms could delay or prevent the delivery of ballots. Alabama, North Carolina, and Wisconsin had already started sending ballots when the Supreme Court acted.
The dispute previously reached the Supreme Court in August. As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-appointed-judge-throws-trumps-mail-in-ballot-plan-into-limbo">reported</a>, the justices paused an earlier injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, because the states had sued before demonstrating that the Trump administration&#8217;s plan would harm them. The Supreme Court emphasized that it had not decided whether the plan itself was legal.
After the Postal Service finalized its rule, the states filed a renewed challenge. Talwani issued a preliminary injunction, writing that states were &#8220;unable to pivot this late in the election cycle&#8221; without risking disenfranchising voters.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the rule should remain blocked for the midterms, but he said there was &#8220;at least a fair prospect&#8221; it fell within the Postal Service&#8217;s authority. He concluded that applying it during the 2026 elections would be &#8220;arbitrary and capricious&#8221; because officials lacked sufficient time to implement it.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the administration had met the requirements for a stay. Monday&#8217;s decision does not permanently invalidate the rule, but it effectively prevents its use during this year&#8217;s elections.

U.S. President Donald Trump Visits Ireland – Day Two Doonbeg

Supreme Court Slams Brakes On Trump’s Mail-Ballot Plan

united states postal service

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg argued Sunday that the Supreme Court has become dangerously partisan — then proposed a fix that would require Congress to add six justices widely expected to lean in his own party&#8217;s favor, during an appearance on NBC&#8217;s Meet the Press.
Buttigieg told host Kristen Welker that the court has come to look like a &#8220;nakedly partisan institution&#8221; and calling for six additional justices to be added to the current nine-member bench — a bigger expansion than he has previously floated.
&#8220;It has become a nakedly partisan institution,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And I want to be clear. The idea is not to just add justices for its own sake. The idea is to reform the institution, to make it less partisan.&#8221;
The comments extend a message Buttigieg has delivered repeatedly since at least July, when he told Fox News that public confidence in the court had fallen to what he called the lowest point in its history, and proposed a package of changes including term limits for justices and a &#8220;balanced bench&#8221; selection process meant to reduce political influence over appointments. At that time, Buttigieg said he favored expanding the court from nine seats to 13, a number he said should match what he called &#8220;the number of districts&#8221; in the federal system. In fact, the federal judiciary has 94 judicial districts; the number 13 refers to the appellate circuits, not districts — an error critics flagged after his July remarks.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Fix Congress. Reform the Supreme Court. End money in politics. We cannot be afraid to fight for big reforms.
Whether it’s paying more at the pump or struggling to afford a mortgage, kitchen-table problems will only be solvable when we deliver more accountability in government. <a href="https://t.co/YodjxFkJVu">pic.twitter.com/YodjxFkJVu</a>
— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) <a href="https://x.com/PeteButtigieg/status/2077232918053675143?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 
His Sunday figure of six additional seats, bringing the bench to 15, aligns instead with an <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/9/6/17827786/kavanaugh-vote-supreme-court-packing">academic proposal</a> first advanced by law professors Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman, under which judges would be divided evenly between the parties with a final bloc chosen by consensus.
Buttigieg, widely viewed as a potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender, has not said whether he would pursue court expansion as a policy priority if elected.

President Biden Delivers Remarks On Airline Passenger Protections

Buttigieg Proposes Court-Packing To Fix Supreme Court He Calls ‘Nakedly Partisan’

2028 presidential election

court packing

meet the press

pete buttigieg

The Supreme Court blocked a federal judge’s decision ordering Missouri officials to use Republican-friendly maps for the midterm elections. 
Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/091026zr_b07d.pdf">granted</a> a request from a left-wing group to block a lower court ruling directing Missouri to use election maps from the state’s 2026 primary instead of the older 2022 maps favored by Democrats. The block will remain as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considers the case. 
The order is the latest update in a dramatic back-and-forth battle over which districts Missouri voters will see on the ballot in November. Maps passed by the state legislature in 2025 and used during the 2026 primary elections were expected to yield a 7-1 Republican House seat advantage. The old maps, approved in 2022, led to a 6-2 GOP advantage. 
Adding further complexity to the case, the deadline for Missouri to finalize the ballot was September 8.
Kavanaugh’s order could significantly alter the landscape in an election year in which every seat counts as both parties fight for control of the House. His order blocks the decision of Eastern District of Missouri Chief Judge Stephen Clark, who argued that primary voters would be disenfranchised if the maps reverted. 
“Disenfranchising voters across the state and denying them their constitutional right to have their primary votes counted significantly harm the public interest,” he wrote. “Using a different map for the general election would wreak havoc on the fairness and orderliness of Missouri’s congressional elections, calling into question the candidacy of those nominated in the primaries and the votes of those who voted in the primaries. Widespread voter confusion would inevitably follow.”
That decision came after Rep. Bob Onder (R-MO), Republican congressional nominee Rick Brattin, and two Missouri primary voters argued that their votes would be invalidated if the old maps were reinstated for the November election. Clark, appointed by President Donald Trump, agreed. 
The lawsuit came after the Missouri Supreme Court said that the 2022 maps must be used until a referendum can be held after a challenge by a liberal group called “People Not Politicians.” 
Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins said that the new maps would be used to comply with Clark&#8217;s ruling despite the state Supreme Court’s ruling that the old maps should be used. The court has called for a hearing on whether to hold Hoskins in contempt of court over his decision.

President Trump Delivers State Of The Union Address To Joint Session Of Congress

Supreme Court Hands GOP Another Loss In Election Map Battle

house of representatives

missouri

redistricting

The surrogate mother who refused a California couple’s demand to abort a baby after he was diagnosed with a heart defect is taking her extraordinary custody battle to the U.S. Supreme Court.
McKenna West, an Alaska nurse who carried and gave birth to the baby in Texas, <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/mw-california-surrogate-custody-fight.pdf">filed an emergency application</a> Wednesday asking the Supreme Court to block a California ruling recognizing the biological parents, Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, as the child’s legal parents. West’s attorneys have asked Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees urgent matters from the Ninth Circuit, to block the California ruling temporarily. 
Kagan has not yet ruled on the request. In most cases on the court’s emergency docket, justices will refer the matter to the full court for review. An order in West&#8217;s favor would not resolve the custody issue, but rather hit the brakes on the California ruling and bring the surrogate mother back into the fold as the infant child fights for his life. 
The remarkable custody battle case centers around a bitter dispute over abortion, surrogacy, and parental rights. West says the California ruling has left her unable to advocate for the medically fragile newborn, whom she calls Gabriel. His genetic parents named him Rumi.
West’s attorneys argue that the existing court orders are inflicting “irreparable harm” — a legal term for damage or injury that cannot be remedied without immediate intervention from the high court.
“The child could be removed from the Texas hospital and taken to California for hospice — despite his treatable condition — around September 17, if not sooner,” the filing reads. “Without a stay, the Commissioning Parties may halt life-saving care for Baby G. before this Court can even consider a petition for certiorari, much less rule on the merits.”
At 20 weeks, the baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a serious congenital heart defect that typically requires three staged surgeries. With treatment, babies with HLHS can survive into adulthood, according to <a href="https://www.nyp.org/pediatrics/heart/hypoplastic-left-heart-syndrome-hlhs/treatment">NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital</a>. The diagnosis prompted the biological parents to seek an abortion. West initially agreed but changed her mind and fled to Texas, where she sought medical care in a state with sweeping abortion restrictions. 
“This is my body, and I absolutely don’t want to go through this. Nothing was scarier than questioning my own soul and knowing what would happen to this baby boy,” she previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/red-state-comes-to-rescue-of-surrogate-mom-facing-pressure-to-kill-baby?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=12&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Red+State+Comes+To+Rescue+Of+Surrogate+Mom+Facing+Pressure+To+Kill+Baby">told</a> Live Action. “His life doesn’t have a price tag on it. There’s nothing that they could try to come after me for that would be worth his life.”
The baby was born on August 12 and has undergone at least one complex life-saving surgery to treat his heart condition, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/baby-fights-for-life-as-genetic-parents-battle-surrogate-who-refused-abortion">The Daily Wire reported</a>. 
In a Dallas courtroom last month, the genetic parents Gilkar and Ahmed told a judge they were reeling after West defied their demand to get an abortion. 
“He’s our child,” Gilkar said, according to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/baby-surrogacy-mckenna-ivf-texas-heart-surgery-3df649dd00acd9fec8324687be557044">the Associated Press</a>, which reported that the California woman wiped away tears on the witness stand. Referring to the surrogate sitting across the courtroom, Gilkar added, “She’s unstable. She’s trying to take him from us.”
Jeff Domen, an attorney for West, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/baby-surrogacy-mckenna-ivf-texas-heart-surgery-3df649dd00acd9fec8324687be557044">repeatedly pressed</a> Gilkar about her desire to terminate the pregnancy after the baby heart defect diagnosis. 
“Would you trust somebody to care for your child that wanted your child dead?” Domen asked.
Gilkar said she did not know how to answer.
In earlier court filings, the biological parents accused West of initially agreeing to terminate the pregnancy before reversing course, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/couple-surrogate-claims-wanted-baby-aborted-break-silence-as-red-state-steps-in?author=Amanda+Harding&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=Couple+Surrogate+Claims+Wanted+Baby+Aborted+Break+Silence+As+Red+State+Steps+In">The Daily Wire</a> reported. They have also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/surrogate-baby-saga-takes-dark-new-turn-after-mom-chose-life">sued West for more than $100,000</a>, alleging she violated a <a href="https://dam.tmz.com/document/3f/o/2026/08/14/3fb808514e0747bca9785de19a7b2472.pdf">surrogacy agreement</a> that included an abortion provision.
“It is undisputed that West initially agreed and that she herself made the initial appointment. She then unilaterally changed her mind, cut off all contact with A.B. and C.D., and withdrew medical releases allowing A.B. and C.D. to have contact with all medical providers,” the filing said.
In August, a Dallas judge granted the biological couple’s request for a temporary restraining order against West and blocked her from making any medical decisions for the child she was carrying. On September 2, the Texas judge upheld the California ruling and removed West from the case, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/surrogate-refused-abortion-takes-fight-supreme-court-babys-life-hangs-balance">Fox News reported</a>.
West is now shut out of the baby’s life and largely in the dark about his medical care and prognosis as the appeals process unfolds. Her attorneys allege the biological parents have begun challenging the medical-care order, despite previously agreeing to the baby’s first round of life-saving surgery.
Now, West’s attorneys are pleading with the nation’s highest court to intervene and restore her ability to advocate for the child.
“Unless this Court provides relief from that judgment, M.W. will have no access to information about Baby G.’s condition as the Commissioning Parties seek to overturn the Texas order requiring him to receive ongoing life-saving care,” West’s attorneys said.

Surrogate Who Refused Abortion Takes Nasty Custody Battle To Supreme Court

abortion

child custody

mckenna west

surrogacy dispute

texas

A federal judge on Friday again blocked the U.S. Postal Service from requiring states to follow new mail-ballot procedures developed under President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive order.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who was appointed in 2014 by President Barack Obama, issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Postal Service from imposing the requirements ahead of the November midterms. The ruling replaces a temporary block Talwani imposed after Democratic-led states renewed their legal challenge.
States may voluntarily use the Postal Service&#8217;s new system, but none have announced plans to do so, the Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2026-trump-mail-voting-postal-service-ce207ff2d0533de05cc2d299e91a0198">reported</a>.
Under the rule, state election officials would have to submit voters&#8217; names, addresses, and unique ballot-envelope barcodes through a federal portal before turning outbound ballots over to the Postal Service. The Postal Service could reject mailings that did not comply and return them to election officials.
Talwani said the timing would make compliance difficult as states begin distributing ballots. North Carolina mailed its first ballots Friday. Other states are expected to soon follow.
Talwani wrote that states are &#8220;unable to pivot this late in the election cycle, nearly guaranteeing significant disenfranchisement for eligible voters.&#8221;
The case reached the Supreme Court last month. On August 24, the justices paused an earlier injunction issued by Talwani, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-makes-decision-in-mail-in-ballot-fight-ahead-of-midterms">reported</a>, finding that the states had sued before showing that Trump&#8217;s executive order would actually harm them. The justices made clear that they had not ruled on whether the administration&#8217;s actions were legal.
Following that ruling, Talwani <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-scores-second-major-win-in-mail-in-voting-fight">lifted</a> her remaining injunction, temporarily clearing the way for the Postal Service to proceed. By then, the Postal Service had issued its final rule. That allowed the states to challenge the rule itself.
The states then sued over the final rule, and Talwani blocked it Friday.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift Talwani&#8217;s temporary block. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gave the states challenging the rule until 10 a.m. Tuesday to respond. Talwani replaced the temporary order with a preliminary injunction Friday, and the parties notified the Supreme Court of the new ruling. The justices have not indicated when they will act.

US-VOTE-WASHINGTON

Obama-Appointed Judge Throws Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Plan Into Limbo

indira talwani

us postal service

House Democrats voted on Wednesday to block a constitutional amendment that would lock the size of the Supreme Court at nine justices — as it has been since 1869.
Because the proposed measure would amend the U.S. Constitution, two-thirds of the House would have to vote in favor for it to pass. Thursday&#8217;s vote count, at 212-206, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democrats-block-constitutional-amendment-supreme-court-justices-rcna595736">failed</a> to reach that threshold — and all but one House Democrat voted against it.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) introduced the proposed amendment, which would read, &#8220;The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices.&#8221;
The need for such an amendment, he said, stemmed from the growing number of Democrats who were displeased with the current makeup of the Supreme Court and have suggested expansion as a means of making it more &#8220;fair&#8221; (read: tipping it leftward).
&#8220;If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes its rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? That&#8217;s why I&#8217;m urging my colleagues to support my resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently fix the number of Supreme Court Justices at Nine,&#8221; he said.
But House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) pushed her fellow Democrats to vote &#8220;no&#8221; on the measure.
&#8220;This proposed constitutional amendment would permanently fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, stripping Congress of yet another constitutional authority that is meant to be controlled by the American people’s representatives,&#8221; she argued, adding that spending time talking about the size of the court would also distract from other business like addressing affordability.
The size of the court, which has been officially nine since 1869, is not outlined in the Constitution and has traditionally been left up to Congress to determine. The Judiciary Act of 1789 initially set the court&#8217;s size at six justices — but it has changed several times in the years since.
In 1807, a seventh justice was added to accommodate new western circuits as the nation expanded. In 1837, Congress increased the court to include nine justices. A tenth was added during the Civil War in 1863, but Congress reduced the court back to just seven in 1866 — a move designed to prevent then-President Andrew Johnson from making any appointments to the high court. The Judiciary Act of 1869 brought the number back to nine.
In the 1930s, in an effort to get around a conservative Supreme Court and push his New Deal policies, then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a plan to add as many as six justices to the court — but the backlash, even from his own party, forced him to reconsider.
In recent years, however, more and more Democrats have come around to the idea — and many are openly calling for it.
&#8220;I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said. “Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.&#8221;
Former Vice President Kamala Harris also suggested that she was on board with the idea of a 13-member Court.
Rep. Don Davis (D-NC) was the only Democrat to vote in favor of the amendment. Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA) voted against it despite normally caucusing with Republicans.

US-JUSTICE-SUPREME-COURT-GROUP-PHOTO

Dems Vote Down Amendment That Would Lock SCOTUS At Nine Justices

andy biggs

constitutional amendment

house democrats

katherine clark

The White House complex&#8217;s historic bowling alley is next in line for an upgrade as President Donald Trump continues to leave his mark on Washington. 
The General Services Administration awarded a contract worth more than $250,000 to renovate the lighting at the two-lane Harry S. Truman Bowling Alley, Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/31/white-house-bowling-alley-gets-a-250k-glow-up-01057880">reported</a> Monday. 
The July 28 contract went to Charles Mann Enterprises, a Washington-based construction firm that later received an additional $8,800 contract to escort workers through secure areas during the project. 
The company was founded by former NFL defensive end Charles Mann, who played for the Washington Redskins and the San Francisco 49ers. During his career, Mann was selected to four Pro Bowls and won three Super Bowls during his pro football career.
A West Wing basement bowling alley was first constructed in 1947 under President Harry Truman before the lanes were transferred to the Old Executive Office Building in the 1950s, <a href="https://www.whitehousehistory.org/sports-recreation">according</a> to the White House Historical Association. President Richard Nixon later added a bowling alley to the White House residential complex in 1973, as he enjoyed bowling with his wife. 
&nbsp;
<div id="attachment_1169715" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1169715" class="size-full wp-image-1169715" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/GettyImages-515384528.jpg" alt="The champs are the three top winners of the national 10-pin bowling tournament that VA conducted in six of its paraplegic centers where paralyzed vets receive special treatment. Left to right: Gordon C. Scott of Crossville, Ala., patient at Memphis, Tenn., VA hospital; Leo Ladduceur of Detroit, Mich., and Gerald A. Kopp of Spokane, Wash., both patients at the Van Nuys, Calif., hospital, and President Truman." width="1024" height="758" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/GettyImages-515384528.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/GettyImages-515384528-300x222.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/GettyImages-515384528-778x576.jpg 778w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/GettyImages-515384528-768x569.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Truman and veterans bowling in 1947. Credit: Bettmann / Contributor via Getty Images.</div>
A previous project to revamp the bowling alley under President Barack Obama in 2014 was scrapped after Republican objections. The Republican-controlled House later approved an amendment prohibiting federal funding for the renovation.
During Trump’s first term, first lady Melania Trump <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/press-release-first-lady-melania-trump-celebrates-completion-the-newly-renovated-bowling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">oversaw</a> the restoration of the Nixon-era alley that restored its original wooden lane and updated its electrical wiring, machinery, and interior. The Bowling Proprietors&#8217; Association of America funded that project.
Throughout his second term, Trump has transformed parts of the White House complex through multiple construction projects. He remade the Rose Garden with a white stone patio and statues honoring America&#8217;s founders, oversaw construction of a granite helipad on the South Lawn, and renovated the historic Lincoln Bedroom bathroom. 
Trump has also pushed for the construction of a new White House ballroom and military complex, which he has argued is necessary for national security. The project has faced opposition from preservation groups but won a significant legal victory Monday when the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-drops-5-4-ruling-in-trump-ballroom-fight?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Supreme+Court+Drops+5-4+Ruling+In+Trump+Ballroom+Fight">cleared</a> the way for construction to continue while litigation proceeds. 
The court&#8217;s 5-4 majority did not decide whether the project is legal, ruling only that the National Trust for Historic Preservation was unlikely to establish that it had standing to challenge the construction.

President Trump Shows White House Press Corps The Continuing Ballroom Construction

Iconic White House Amenity Is Next Up On The Renovation List

melania trump

white house

white house ballroom

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to move forward with construction of the White House ballroom. 
In an <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a203_2b8e.pdf">unsigned 5-4 order</a>, the majority granted an emergency application from the Trump administration, blocking lower court rulings that would have halted work on the aboveground portion of the project. At this preliminary stage, the majority concluded the preservation groups who brought the lawsuit lacked standing to sue. 
“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief,” the high court wrote. 
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberal wing — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — in dissent. He argued that Congress has not delegated the president the authority to undergo such a project. 
“That construction is likely unlawful,” Roberts wrote. “Pursuant to its plenary constitutional authority over the District of Columbia and federal property, Congress has explicitly prohibited the construction of any “building or structure . . . on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”
On Aug. 21, Roberts issued an<a href="https://x.com/JordanOnRecord/status/2090863977840459889?s=20"> administrative stay</a>, temporarily blocking the federal district court’s injunction while the full Supreme Court considered the Trump administration’s emergency request. Monday’s order marks a rare instance of Roberts in dissent as the conservative wing moves forward without him.
“The White House is not just any building, and—when it comes to historic preservation—Hoagland is not just any person. In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue,” Roberts argued with the liberals. 
“Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” he added. 
The split decision is a significant victory for the administration, which has argued that construction should be allowed to continue as the case moved through the courts, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-gives-trump-green-light-to-keep-building-white-house-ballroom-for-now">The Daily Wire</a> reported.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/supreme-court-allows-white-house-ballroom-construction-to-continue-for-now/">described</a> the project in a filing as an “integrated military complex” that includes a secure ballroom space that is “vitally required by national security.” The administration has also argued that the White House requires additional security infrastructure, including facilities designed to protect the president and other officials from potential attacks.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the lawsuit against the administration, disagreed. The group argued that Trump cannot unilaterally demolish portions of the White House and construct a 90,000-square-foot addition without congressional authorization and other required reviews. The trust has accused the administration of attempting to “outrun judicial review” by moving construction forward as quickly as possible.
The administration said in court filings that the project is already roughly 65% complete, with crews working 20 hours a day, seven days a week. About $200 million in private donations has reportedly already been spent or committed to the project. Trump first announced the ballroom project after returning to the White House, describing it as a roughly $400 million project financed primarily through private donations. 
The administration subsequently demolished the White House’s East Wing last year to clear the site.

Construction Continues On Trump Projects Around Washington, DC

Supreme Court Drops 5-4 Ruling In Trump Ballroom Fight

john roberts

national trust for historic preservation

A federal appeals court has ruled that the First Amendment protects the private possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM), provided that the images do not depict real children, a decision that exposes a startling gap between decades-old Supreme Court precedent and modern artificial intelligence.
The <a href="https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&amp;Path=Y2026/D08-25/C:25-1354:J:Lee:aut:T:fnOp:N:3597567:S:0">7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled</a> Tuesday that the government cannot prosecute Steven Anderegg for possessing AI-generated images depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct because Supreme Court precedent protects the private possession of such material.
Two of the three judges on the panel, in a separate opinion, acknowledged the disturbing implications of a ruling they felt bound by precedent to reach.
&#8220;We now live in an age where GenAI models can render images depicting the abuse of virtual children that are virtually indistinguishable from those depicting the abuse of actual children,&#8221; Judge John Lee wrote in a concurrence joined by Judge Joshua Kolar. &#8220;Given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves.&#8221;
The ruling stems from the prosecution of Anderegg, a Wisconsin man accused of using an AI image generator to create thousands of sexually explicit images depicting children. According to prosecutors, an investigation began after Meta, the parent company of Instagram, reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that an Instagram user had sent apparent AI-generated CSAM to an account belonging to a minor. Anderegg was ultimately charged with producing and distributing the material, transferring it to a minor under 16, and possessing it.
A federal district court dismissed the possession charge, concluding that prosecuting Anderegg for privately possessing the AI-generated images violated the First Amendment. The Justice Department appealed that decision to the 7th Circuit. The appeals court affirmed the dismissal.
Crucially, the decision does not mean that everything Anderegg allegedly did is protected by the First Amendment. The charges involving the production and distribution of the material, as well as allegedly sending it to a 15-year-old boy, remain pending.
Still, the court&#8217;s decision emphasizes a legal distinction: If a person creates or obtains AI-generated CSAM through conduct that is otherwise prosecutable, the government is able to prosecute that conduct, but once purely virtual material is privately possessed inside the home, existing Supreme Court precedent prevents the government from criminalizing the possession itself.
The foundation for the conundrum dates back to 1969, when the Supreme Court ruled in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/293">Stanley v. Georgia</a> that the government generally could not criminalize an individual&#8217;s private possession of obscene material inside his home.
Building on that foundation three decades later, the Supreme Court confronted virtual child pornography in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-795">Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition</a>. In the 2002 decision, the justices struck down portions of a federal law that prohibited sexually explicit depictions of fictional children when no actual child was involved in their production.
The Supreme Court reasoned that the government&#8217;s strongest justification for prohibiting child pornography — protecting children from being exploited in its production — did not apply when no real child was involved. Those rulings were written long before today&#8217;s generative AI systems could produce photorealistic images with a few prompts.
The 7th Circuit said that distinction has become increasingly difficult to maintain. “Free Speech Coalition” was decided nearly 25 years ago, Lee wrote, and “the image-generation technology available today was likely unimaginable back then.”
The court also pointed to emerging evidence that AI-generated CSAM may not be entirely disconnected from the exploitation of real children. Lee noted that researchers have found CSAM in datasets used to train image-generation models, raising the possibility that some supposedly “virtual” material could ultimately be connected to real-world abuse. That issue, however, was not fully developed by the government in Anderegg&#8217;s appeal, leaving the court unable to resolve it.
The 7th Circuit&#8217;s opinion also revived a warning made by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas more than two decades ago. In his 2002 concurrence in Free Speech Coalition, Thomas warned that technological advances could eventually make it difficult to enforce laws against child pornography involving actual victims if virtual images became sufficiently realistic.
Thomas wrote that if technological advances prevented prosecutors from effectively enforcing laws against illegal material, the government might eventually have a compelling interest in regulating a narrow category of otherwise lawful speech. “According to some experts, that day may have arrived,” Lee concluded, citing the growing volume of AI-generated material reported to the CyberTipline and the difficulties it presents for law enforcement.
The judges ultimately concluded that it is not their role to overrule or rewrite Supreme Court precedent. “The stakes are high,” Lee wrote, “and we must be mindful of the ever-accelerating advancements in image generation technology.” The decision therefore leaves the issue squarely in the Supreme Court&#8217;s hands.

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Policy Gets Supreme Court Hearing

You Can’t Be Charged For Possessing AI Child Porn, Court Rules

child sexual abuse material

court ruling

first amendment

President Trump on Thursday praised Texas Sen. Ted Cruz as a “talented guy” while teasing the possibility of the Republican launching another bid for the White House in 2028.
The latest twist in the 2028 GOP presidential sweepstakes came when The Daily Caller’s Reagan Reese pressed Trump directly about the race to lead his MAGA movement forward.
“Ted Cruz keeps teasing a 2028 presidential run. You ran against him for president. Do you think he could be president? What’s your reaction to that?” she asked.
“Yeah, I would say that he&#8217;s very talented. He&#8217;s a very good friend of mine. I think he might do that. Yeah, he&#8217;s a very talented — he&#8217;s a talented guy,” Trump <a href="https://x.com/cspan/status/2093034068711526786?s=20">said</a>. 
Another presidential bid appears almost inevitable for the Texas Republican, who has made no secret of his national political ambitions.
“It’s no secret that I want to be president,” Cruz said during an interview on Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1laHkwvrB0&amp;list=PLOv-623vWdc0">podcast</a>. “Time will tell.”
The 55-year-old appeared to agree with Patrick’s assertion that the GOP nomination will not be a coronation for Vice President Vance, predicting that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott could all throw their hats into the ring.
“I will say, this is a bug that history has proved is rarely ended,” the senator <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1laHkwvrB0&amp;list=PLOv-623vWdc0">said</a> of his White House ambitions. “It is a permanent and often fatal bug.”
While Trump stopped short of an endorsement, it’s not the first time he’s left the door open for Cruz to climb the political ladder. For years, Trump has repeatedly floated Cruz as a potential Supreme Court nominee. 
Once a fierce critic and primary rival, Trump has called the conservative “an amazing guy” who is “so good and so talented,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-floats-idea-for-his-next-supreme-court-appointment-as-rumors-swirl-about-possible-retirements">The Daily Wire previously reported. </a>
“I’m thinking about putting him in the Supreme Court,” Trump said in February. “I’m thinking because it’s very hard, getting these nominations through is tough.”
The president added that Cruz would receive “100%” of the Democratic and Republican vote, arguing that Cruz’s foes would “want to get him out of [the Senate]. He is such a pain in the ass.”
At the time, Cruz shot down the idea of serving on the nation&#8217;s highest court. 
“My answer’s not just no, it’s hell no,” he <a href="https://www.fox26houston.com/news/supreme-court-texas-ted-cruz-donald-trump">said earlier this year</a>. “It is interesting in the first Trump term, the president talked to me about all three Supreme Court vacancies, and we had very serious conversations, and I told him no all three times.”
In his podcast interview with Patrick, Cruz opened up about why he ultimately rebuffed Trump&#8217;s push to potentially consider him to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
“But I said no and came to a real peace with it because I believe that I can make a much bigger difference in the Senate than I would on the court,” he said. “That there are lots of good principled constitutionalists who would do that job and I care deeply about [them] being there. In the Senate, how many people actually stand up and lead?”
Not everyone, however, is convinced Cruz can win over the hearts and minds of the MAGA faithful. Trump adviser Alex Bruesewitz bluntly questioned whether the Texas senator has any path to the White House in 2028.
&#8220;It’s going to be very hard for you to become President when voters don’t like you. How do you plan to make them like you? You aren’t particularly charming, your voice is a bit annoying, you’re a career politician with limited accomplishments, and you aren’t exactly &#8216;America First,&#8217;” Bruesewitz <a href="https://x.com/alexbruesewitz/status/2092982498032767347?s=20">said</a> on X. 
&#8220;I’ve also been told your operation has been paying influencers to undermine people inside the Trump admin, which isn’t cool, bro.&#8221;

President Trump Speaks At Port Of Corpus Christi In Texas

Trump Weighs In On Potential Ted Cruz Presidential Run

jd vance

ted cruz

A Boston federal judge on Wednesday lifted her remaining block on key portions of President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive order seeking to tighten mail-in voting rules ahead of the midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s decision <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-makes-decision-in-mail-in-ballot-fight-ahead-of-midterms?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=6&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Supreme+Court+Makes+Decision+In+Mail-In+Ballot+Fight+Ahead+Of+Midterms">comes two days</a> after a divided Supreme Court stayed a previous ruling from Talwani that blocked the Trump administration from implementing portions of the order.
In her <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.298449/gov.uscourts.mad.298449.204.0.pdf">nine-page order</a>, Talwani, an Obama appointee, expressed frustration with the Supreme Court&#8217;s intervention and cited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent but said she was “compelled” to lift the injunction in light of the high court’s ruling.
The development allows the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to move forward for now with new requirements for mail ballots in federal elections, even as Democratic-led states challenge the new rule in a <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.305406/gov.uscourts.mad.305406.1.0.pdf">separate lawsuit.</a>
“This is a major win for the security of American elections,&#8221; White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis told The Daily Wire. &#8220;These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders. This Administration will continue to lawfully enact the agenda President Trump was elected on — which includes the safety and security of our elections.”
The Supreme Court&#8217;s unsigned 6-3 decision Monday marked an interim victory for Trump but did not resolve the order’s underlying legality.
The justices found that the Trump administration was likely to prevail on its argument that the states challenging the order lacked standing because they had not demonstrated the concrete and imminent injuries necessary to bring their claims at this stage.
“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell,” the court wrote. “But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”
In March, Trump signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/ensuring-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections/">executive order</a> directing the Department of Homeland Security to create and distribute “State Citizenship Lists” identifying residents who are U.S. citizens and will be at least 18 years old by the next federal election. 
A separate provision directed the U.S. Postal Service to establish new procedures for mail-in and absentee ballots in federal elections.
Last Friday, the USPS issued a <a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-17238.pdf">final rule</a> establishing new standards for mail-in ballots in federal elections. Under the rule, election officials would have to submit voters’ names, addresses, and unique ballot-envelope barcodes through a federal portal before handing ballots over to the Postal Service. Ballots in violation would be rejected and returned to the authorized ballot mailer.
All three liberal justices dissented from Monday&#8217;s Supreme Court decision. Justice Jackson wrote a solo dissent to blast the court’s order.
“This is not a close call. The Government suffers no harm from an injunction limiting unlawful actions, much less ‘hypothetical’ and ‘speculative’ acts that the Government says it was not even sure it would take,” Jackson wrote. 
“When the Government’s obvious goal is to interfere with the Plaintiff States’ practices and prerogatives in a manner that the Constitution does not authorize, it is both a serious legal error and a grave misuse of our equitable emergency powers to let the Executive proceed even one step further,” Jackson added.

IMG_6319

Trump Scores Second Major Win In Mail-In Voting Fight

ketanji brown jackson

Menu