Category: Breaking the Law

Trump Vows Executive Order Voter ID Mandate Bypassing Congress

President Donald Trump announced Friday via social media that he would issue an executive order mandating voter identification for midterm elections if Congress does not pass legislation to that effect. Trump stated, “There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!” and claimed there are “legal reasons” supporting such an order, though he provided no specifics. The House passed the SAVE America Act on Wednesday with unanimous Republican support, requiring states to obtain documentary proof of citizenship before voter registration and imposing new mail-in ballot restrictions.

Legal experts directly contradicted Trump’s authority to unilaterally alter election procedures. Stanford law professor Nate Persily stated the Constitution explicitly grants election regulation power to state legislatures, not the president, and that “the Constitution is clear on this.” Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, said any executive order requiring states to comply with Trump’s voter ID mandate would “similarly be found to be unconstitutional” based on a federal judge’s January ruling that permanently blocked a prior Trump executive order attempting to alter voting laws. Trump issued that sweeping order in March 2025 seeking to impose mail-in ballot deadlines and citizenship proof requirements, which a federal court determined exceeded presidential authority.

The SAVE America Act now faces a Senate vote requiring 60 votes to succeed—an unlikely threshold given Democratic opposition and Republican defections. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska became the first Republican senator to oppose the bill, noting that GOP colleagues claimed in 2021 to oppose federal election mandates imposed on states. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer characterized the legislation as imposing “Jim Crow type laws to the entire country” and declared it “dead on arrival in the Senate.” Democrats argue voter ID laws are designed to disenfranchise voters, emphasizing that voting by noncitizens is already illegal and exceedingly rare.

Persily connected Trump’s voter ID push to broader attempts to federalize election administration, including the FBI’s recent seizure of ballots and voter records from Fulton County, Georgia—a seizure Trump’s continued false claims about the 2020 election have motivated. Persily stated Trump’s push represents a coordinated effort: “It’s not an isolated tweet here, right? There’s a lot that’s going on. So you’ve got the action in the legislature, in Congress, you’ve got these, the earlier executive order, you have the seizing of the ballots and other materials from Fulton County, right? And so it’s all of a piece with the desire to have greater federal oversight of elections.”

Trump’s pattern of attempting to circumvent constitutional limits on presidential power reflects his stated goal to federalize election administration from states he deems incapable of running elections honestly, specifically targeting Democratic-led jurisdictions. His explicit threat to impose voter ID requirements “whether approved by Congress or not” contradicts the constitutional separation of powers and follows his documented history of pressuring state officials to overturn legitimate election results.

(Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/trump-vows-voter-id-requirements-midterms-rcna259018)

NSA Detected Foreign Call About Trump Associate Gabbard Blocked

Last spring, the National Security Agency detected a phone call between two foreign intelligence operatives discussing a person close to Donald Trump. Rather than following standard protocol to distribute the intelligence report, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard delivered a paper copy directly to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and subsequently instructed the NSA to transmit the classified details to her office instead of publishing the report.

On April 17, a whistleblower contacted the inspector general alleging that Gabbard blocked the classified intelligence from routine distribution. The whistleblower filed a formal complaint on May 21 detailing Gabbard’s actions. The NSA does not monitor individuals without justification, and the person discussed in the call is not understood to be an administration official or special government employee, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The intelligence community inspector general dismissed the complaint after a 14-day review on June 6, stating the office “could not determine if the allegations appear credible.” The watchdog’s independence may be compromised after Gabbard assigned one of her top advisers, Dennis Kirk—a co-author of Project 2025 and a first Trump administration official—to work in the inspector general’s office on May 9, two weeks after the whistleblower’s initial contact.

For eight months, the complaint remained classified and withheld from congressional intelligence committees, violating the law requiring agencies to relay whistleblower complaints to Congress within 21 days. Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner stated the months-long delay reflected an effort to “bury the complaint.” Members of the “gang of eight” received a heavily redacted version on Tuesday night, with much of the complaint withheld under claims of executive privilege—a move Gabbard’s attorney said flags presidential involvement in the underlying intelligence concerns.

Gabbard’s office denied all allegations, stating “every single action taken by DNI Gabbard was fully within her legal and statutory authority.” House Oversight Committee Democrat Stephen Lynch warned that Kirk’s appointment raised “troubling questions about the independence” of the intelligence community inspector general’s office, compromising the agency’s ability to serve as an independent watchdog against weaponization of intelligence for political purposes.

(Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/07/nsa-foreign-intelligence-trump-whistleblower)

Trump Demands Penn Station Rename for Tunnel Funding

President Donald Trump demanded that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer agree to rename Penn Station in New York and Dulles International Airport in Washington after himself in exchange for unfreezing $16 billion in federal funding for a rail tunnel project connecting New York and New Jersey, according to Punchbowl News. The Trump administration had frozen the funds during a government shutdown in the fall, and construction on the tunnel project faced potential shutdown as early as Friday due to lack of resources.

Schumer rejected Trump’s demand and told the president he lacked the legal authority to unfreeze the funds in exchange for renaming public infrastructure. A source close to Schumer stated that Trump could restart the funding unilaterally and that “there’s nothing to trade,” indicating the demand was a purely self-serving condition with no legitimate policy basis.

This episode reflects Trump’s pattern of using federal resources and public assets to promote his personal brand. In December, Trump announced the renaming of the Kennedy Center to the Trump-Kennedy Center, though the venue’s official name is codified in law and cannot be changed without legislation; several artists subsequently canceled shows in protest, and Trump announced the Kennedy Center would close for “renovations” lasting approximately two years.

Additional recent examples include the State Department adding Trump’s name to the U.S. Institute of Peace and Trump unveiling a new “Trump-class” of battleships he claimed he would personally help design. These actions demonstrate Trump’s repeated attempt to repurpose federal institutions and taxpayer-funded infrastructure for self-aggrandizement.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment regarding the Penn Station and Dulles renaming demand. The lawsuit filed by New York and New Jersey against the Trump administration remains ongoing in federal court in Manhattan.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump/trump-reportedly-demanded-his-name-on-penn-station-in-exchange-for-unfreezing-tunnel-project-funds/)

Trump Claims States Are Federal Agents in Elections

President Trump declared on Tuesday that states function as “agents for the federal government in elections,” advancing his push to federalize election administration. During an Oval Office signing ceremony, Trump told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins that the federal government should take over elections from states he deemed incapable of running them honestly, specifically naming Atlanta and other Democratic-led cities as sites of “horrible corruption.” Trump’s assertion contradicts the Constitution, which assigns election administration to state and local officials with limited federal involvement.

Trump framed federal takeover as necessary to ensure honest elections, stating that if states “can’t count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over.” When pressed by Collins on constitutional constraints, Trump dismissed them, declaring states “can administer the election, but they have to do it honestly.” This demand for federal control extends Trump’s pattern of weaponizing federal authority against election officials, mirroring his sustained efforts to delegitimize the 2020 election and intimidate state administrators into compliance with his directives.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later reframed Trump’s “nationalize the voting” language as advocacy for the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship for voter registration. However, noncitizens are already barred from voting in federal elections, making the legislation redundant. The move represents Trump’s broader strategy to impose new voting restrictions ahead of midterm elections under the guise of election security.

The statement follows an FBI seizure last week of election materials from Fulton County, Georgia, in connection with alleged voter fraud claims that have been repeatedly debunked. Legal experts, including UCLA law professor Rick Hasen, characterized such federal intervention as a dramatic escalation in federal control over state-run election infrastructure and warned of further interference in 2026 elections. Trump’s repeated false claims of election fraud and his push for federal dominance over election administration establish the groundwork for authoritarian control over voting mechanisms.

Trump’s assertion that states are federal agents in elections directly contradicts established constitutional law and democratic practice. His pattern of attacking election officials who refuse his demands, combined with federal actions targeting state election materials, demonstrates his intent to consolidate power over election administration and establish federal override of state election systems, dismantling the institutional safeguards that protect democratic elections from executive manipulation.

(Source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/03/politics/trump-nationalize-elections-states?Date=20260204&Profile=CNN+Politics&utm_content=1770166729&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwdGRjcAPxrotleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe_TP6JxjJ8F0XeylqLLR_PnMmKiHjepIwMfFSOkoZjpuKIlcOuE0eA99g3Kc_aem_XKBW8wXEdeRvaH0xj02M9A)

Federal Prosecutors Subpoena Minnesota Democrats on Immigration

Federal prosecutors issued subpoenas on Tuesday to at least five Minnesota Democratic officials, including Governor Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, State Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty. The subpoenas demanded documents related to their policies on immigration enforcement and represent an expansion of the Department of Justice investigation into their response to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations in the state.

The investigation centers on whether elected officials in Minnesota conspired to impede federal immigration agents who have been deployed to the state since last month. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused Frey and Walz of “encouraging violence against law enforcement” and referred to their actions as “terrorism,” though there is no evidence either man incited violence or engaged in terrorist activity. The subpoenas do not cite a specific criminal statute, but prosecutors are examining the officials’ public statements and conduct regarding the federal crackdown.

The investigation follows the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good, an unarmed mother of three, by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis this month. The shooting triggered sustained protests against federal agents in the city, prompting Frey to publicly demand that agents leave and Walz to criticize their conduct. The Justice Department has vowed to arrest anyone impeding the agents’ mission.

The inquiry into the Minnesota officials’ speech and conduct targeting federal immigration enforcement directly examines political expression protected by the First Amendment. The investigation’s expansion to include state and county prosecutors suggests the Trump administration intends to use federal law enforcement to punish Democratic officials for criticizing immigration operations. The Department of Justice has previously initiated investigations into Walz and Frey regarding allegations they conspired to impede Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations through public statements.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/20/us/politics/subpoena-minnesota-democrats-immigration.html)

Trump Says Elections Unnecessary After Accomplishments

President Donald Trump stated in a Reuters interview published Thursday that “we shouldn’t even have an election,” expressing frustration over the possibility that Republicans could lose control of the House or Senate in the 2026 midterm elections. Trump acknowledged that a president’s party typically experiences midterm losses following a presidential victory, framing this as a “deep psychological thing,” but argued his administration had accomplished enough that elections should not occur.

Trump dismissed a Reuters/Ipsos poll showing only 4% of Americans support his plan to absorb Greenland as “fake,” insisting he follows his own instincts rather than public opinion on major policy decisions. He stated, “A lot of times, you can’t convince a voter. You have to just do what’s right,” claiming that controversial actions he has taken, including a criminal probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, ultimately proved correct when results materialized.

During the same interview, Trump addressed Iran, where authorities have killed thousands of demonstrators. He previously pledged “help” to anti-government protesters but became noncommittal when discussing future administration plans, telling Reuters: “We have to play it day by day.” Trump’s equivocation drew backlash from members of his own party after he suggested the killing was “stopping.”

The president’s assertion that elections should not occur reflects a pattern of rejecting democratic constraints, consistent with administration positions claiming presidential authority above legal and constitutional limits. His dismissal of public opinion on major foreign policy decisions and rejection of electoral processes demonstrates a disregard for democratic principles and popular consent governing authority.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-tells-reuters-we-shouldnt-even-have-an-election-ahead-of-midterms/)

Trump Links His Push for Greenland to Not Winning Nobel Peace Prize – The New York Times

President Trump sent a text message to Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store on Sunday, stating that he is pursuing Greenland acquisition partly because Norway did not award him a Nobel Peace Prize. In the message, Trump claimed he had “stopped 8 Wars PLUS” and said that failing to receive the prize means he no longer feels obligated to prioritize peace, instead focusing on “what is good and proper for the United States of America.” Trump also disputed Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, asserting “There are no written documents” supporting Danish claims and demanding “Complete and Total Control of Greenland” for global security.

The text message escalates Trump’s campaign to seize Greenland, an Arctic territory that has been part of the Danish Kingdom for over 300 years. Trump’s claim that lack of a Nobel Prize justifies shifting away from peace-focused policy to territorial acquisition contradicts his stated commitment to peaceful resolution. Trump has previously threatened to acquire Greenland through either an “easy way” or “hard way,” rejecting questions about financial incentives or local consent.

Trump has directed military planners to prepare an invasion plan for Greenland, with advisers accelerating efforts following operations against Venezuela. Trump has declared his commander-in-chief powers are constrained only by his “own morality,” rejecting international law as binding on military action.

World leaders have condemned Trump’s push to acquire Greenland, viewing it as a violation of international law and Danish sovereignty. The message to Norway’s prime minister reveals Trump’s willingness to weaponize personal grievances—in this case, not receiving an international peace prize—to justify geopolitical aggression and abandonment of stated principles.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/19/world/europe/trump-norway-greenland-nobel.html)

Trump Pardons Puerto Rico Ex-Governor Vázquez in Campaign Finance Case

President Donald Trump intends to pardon former Puerto Rico Governor Wanda Vázquez, who pleaded guilty in August 2025 to a campaign finance violation involving acceptance of a promised campaign contribution from a foreign source that was never received. Vázquez was set for sentencing later in January, with federal prosecutors seeking one year in prison, though her attorneys argued the sentence violated a prior guilty plea agreement that had resulted in dismissal of bribery and fraud charges.

A White House official stated that Trump views the case as political prosecution, citing the timing of the investigation's initiation approximately ten days after Vázquez endorsed Trump in 2020. The official, speaking anonymously without authorization to disclose the pardon plan publicly, characterized the prosecution as retaliatory rather than justified. Vázquez is a Republican aligned with Puerto Rico's pro-statehood New Progressive Party.

According to authorities, Vázquez allegedly accepted a bribery offer from Venezuelan banker Julio Martín Herrera Velutini and former FBI agent Mark Rossini between December 2019 and June 2020 while serving as governor. In exchange, she demanded the resignation of Puerto Rico's financial institutions commissioner and appointed a new commissioner of Herrera's choosing, actions authorities documented as occurring after the alleged bribery agreement was made.

Pablo José Hernández, Puerto Rico's congressional representative and member of the opposition Popular Democratic Party, condemned the planned pardon, stating that "impunity protects and fosters corruption" and that the pardon undermines public integrity and faith in justice. Vázquez was the first former Puerto Rico governor to plead guilty to a federal crime and served as the territory's second female governor before losing her party's 2020 primary.

The pardon decision demonstrates Trump's use of executive clemency to benefit political allies, circumventing sentencing for federal prosecutors' recommended penalty. Vázquez's case involved foreign-sourced campaign funding and an abuse of gubernatorial authority to benefit a foreign banker, violations Trump's administration has now chosen to erase through presidential pardon rather than allow judicial process to conclude.

(Source: https://abc7.com/post/trump-pardon-ex-puerto-rico-governor-vzquez-campaign-finance-case-official-says/18417246/)

Trump Illegally Cuts Funding to Blue States

President Donald Trump announced February 1 as the date he will begin withholding all federal funding from sanctuary cities and states with sanctuary jurisdictions, claiming they “protect criminals at the expense of American citizens.” The Bay Area faces potential losses in the billions of dollars that fund emergency management, child support, and human services; San Francisco alone could lose nearly $1 billion annually, representing 6% of its general fund based on fiscal year 2025 figures.

California operates as a sanctuary state by law, with state and local law enforcement generally limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents. State leaders argue the federal government lacks authority to compel local officers to enforce federal immigration law. Trump’s previous threats to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions have already been declared unlawful by courts during both his first and second terms.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated he will file suit immediately if the cuts proceed, declaring “We will go to court within seconds, and we will win if he does this, it’s already proven unlawful.” Bonta expressed anger at what he characterized as Trump’s attack on California’s residents, state, and values, while San Francisco and other cities have successfully litigated this identical issue in prior litigation.

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee countered that the city’s sanctuary policies enable residents to report crimes and access services without fear, and stated no federal threats would alter that commitment. The White House provided no specific executive order or actionable directive when asked about the funding mechanism, instead referring only to Trump’s public remarks made at a Detroit economic club event.

(Source: https://abc7news.com/post/bay-area-could-lose-billions-trump-cuts-funding-sanctuary-cities-attorney-general-rob-bonta-says-unlawful/18401281/?ex_cid=TA_KGO_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook)

Trump DOJ Memo Claims President Above International Law

A classified 20-30 page Justice Department legal opinion presented to Congress on Tuesday argues that President Trump faced no constitutional or international legal constraints when he ordered the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The Office of Legal Counsel memo asserts Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief under Article II of the Constitution permitted the operation, codenamed Absolute Resolve, without prior congressional approval.

The opinion builds directly on a 1989 legal memo authored by William Barr, Trump’s current Attorney General, which claimed presidents possess “inherent constitutional authority” to order law enforcement operations in foreign countries even when doing so violates international law. The new memo treats that premise as settled and argues the Maduro operation did not constitute war in the constitutional sense, therefore bypassing the War Powers Act requirement for congressional authorization. An unclassified version released simultaneously states that international law “does not restrict the president as a matter of domestic law” regarding rendition operations.

The memo conceded that Trump personally justified the operation by stating control of Venezuelan oil reserves was the objective, though the administration maintains it was solely a law enforcement action targeting Maduro as the leader of a narco-trafficking organization. A White House official stated the operation was lawful and that “the Department of Justice routinely executes federal arrest warrants abroad,” framing the military-backed seizure as standard law enforcement practice.

Democratic lawmakers directly contradicted this characterization, arguing that removing a foreign head of state by military force constitutes an act of war regardless of law enforcement justifications. The administration has also used success in the Maduro operation to embolden plans for military actions against other targets, with officials accelerating preparations that extend beyond Venezuela.

The memo stipulated that any military support must remain proportional to the law enforcement objective and acknowledged that military commanders had not assessed Maduro’s actions as a direct or imminent threat to U.S. forces. Nevertheless, the opinion concluded the likelihood of armed resistance justified deploying U.S. military assets. The opinion was provided to lawmakers after the operation had already been executed, establishing legal justification retroactively rather than constraining executive action beforehand.

(Source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/politics/memo-maduro-capture-olc)

1 2 3 … 22