Category: Breaking the Law

Supreme Court Lets Border Agents Strip Green Cards Without Proof

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled 6-3 that border officers may deny reentry to green card holders based on unproven criminal allegations without requiring “clear and convincing evidence” of actual wrongdoing. The decision strips lawful permanent residents of foundational due process protections and empowers border agents to treat returning green card holders as “applicants for admission” vulnerable to detention and removal on mere suspicion, even if convictions occur only after their return or result in acquittal.

The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident since 2007, who was arrested in 2012 for allegedly selling counterfeit goods and briefly left the U.S. Upon return, immigration officers declared him inadmissible based on pending charges. A federal appeals court had previously required “clear and convincing evidence” of an actual crime before changing his status, but the Supreme Court overturned that protection Tuesday. Lau ultimately pleaded guilty in 2013 and was ordered removed, but the ruling’s scope extends far beyond his case.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent condemned the majority for handing the government a “massive blank check” to rewrite immigration law and circumvent statutory protections. She warned that green card holders face potential years in legal limbo or detention even if later acquitted, as the sequencing of charging before conviction or conviction before hearing fundamentally contradicts the plain terms of immigration statutes. The ruling violates the rights of lawful permanent residents who have already cleared security vetting to establish their status.

This decision amplifies the Trump administration’s coordinated assault on legal immigration pathways, executed by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and immigration officials who have transformed agencies into loyalty enforcement arms of the mass deportation campaign. A federal judge recently found that USCIS policies unlawfully discriminated against asylum seekers, green card applicants, and citizenship candidates “solely by the happenstance of their birth,” using purported national security concerns that “mask anti-immigrant sentiments” to justify sweeping removal actions leaving thousands in legal limbo.

Concurrent efforts target additional legal immigration protections, including attempts to strip Temporary Protected Status from over one million immigrants and accelerated citizenship revocation proceedings against naturalized Americans. The administration also unlawfully terminated status for tens of thousands who used a Biden-era appointment app at the U.S.-Mexico border, a determination a federal judge made earlier this year. Combined with Tuesday’s Supreme Court green card ruling, these actions dismantle legal immigration infrastructure while operating under false claims that enforcement targets only the “worst of the worst.”



(Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-green-card-immigration-ruling-b3005036.html)

Trump White House Secretly Pressured Board Protecting Federal Workers

The Trump administration orchestrated a covert pressure campaign on the Merit Systems Protection Board, a federal agency designed to shield civil service employees from arbitrary dismissal, resulting in a March ruling that dismantled decades of precedent protecting federal workers. The board's decision accepted the White House's constitutional theory that President Trump possesses sweeping authority to remove officials without due process, effectively erasing civil service protections for federal employees, including immigration judges whose legal duties often conflict with Trump's political objectives. This ruling represents a deliberate dismantling of the most effective mechanism federal workers possess to contest wrongful termination.

The pressure campaign, led by a White House aide dedicated to expediting federal worker terminations, operated through both public and private channels in ways that parallel direct judicial coercion. By compelling the board to abandon established legal standards, the Trump administration weaponized a protective agency into a tool for authoritarian control over the federal workforce. The board's reversal of longstanding doctrine signals the administration's systematic effort to consolidate executive power and eliminate institutional checks on presidential authority.

This decision implements the "unitary executive" theory, a cornerstone of Trump's governing philosophy that concentrates all executive branch power in the presidency, allowing Trump to direct federal prosecutors, immigration judges, and other officials whose professional independence once constrained his political agenda. The administration has already moved to measure HHS employees' performance based on demonstrable loyalty to Trump's policies, illustrating the practical application of this authority. The ruling defangs the primary legal recourse available to federal workers challenging unlawful dismissals.

Though the board's decision does not directly affect pending Supreme Court cases on presidential power over the civil service, its precedent could devastate protections for vast segments of the federal workforce if upheld on appeal. The timing and methodology of this ruling reveal the administration's calculated assault on institutional independence, transforming independent agencies into compliance mechanisms for Trump's consolidation of power.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/28/us/politics/trump-firings-workers-merit-systems-protection-board.html)

DOJ Defies Judge’s Oath Demand on Trump Weaponization Fund

The Justice Department defied a federal judge’s order on Friday by refusing to swear under oath that Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” is dead. Judge Leonie Brinkema had given the administration a seven-day deadline to declare, under penalty of perjury, that the fund would not proceed. Instead, DOJ attorneys claimed the oath requirement violated “separation of powers,” rejecting the judge’s explicit demand.

The fund, announced in May by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche following a Trump-IRS settlement, was designed to compensate individuals claiming “weaponization and lawfare” by the federal government. Lawmakers and watchdogs immediately flagged that the $1.776 billion would likely flow to Trump’s political allies and supporters, with no genuine safeguards against partisan abuse. After public backlash, Blanche told House lawmakers in June the fund was “not moving forward, ever,” yet the administration has continued to dodge court accountability through written oath.

Democracy Forward, representing plaintiffs challenging the fund, characterized the DOJ’s filing as proof of evasion. “It is telling that even after the federal court gave them a week, the Acting Attorney General and other senior administration officials continue to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of the organization. The DOJ’s refusal to commit in writing contradicts its public assurances and signals the fund’s legal status remains unresolved despite official denials.

DOJ counsel Andrew Block argued that prior statements by administration officials, made “against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity,” should satisfy the court without formal sworn declarations. However, his assertion that penalties alone substitute for testimony under oath undercuts the judicial authority to enforce compliance and verify executive accountability. Trump previously attacked media coverage of his abandoned anti-weaponization fund during an Oval Office press session, indicating the administration’s sensitivity to scrutiny of the scheme.

Federal courts were closed Friday for Juneteenth, with Judge Brinkema unlikely to respond before Monday. The administration’s defiance of the judge’s direct order exemplifies Trump’s broader pattern of disregarding judicial oversight and refusing transparent accountability for executive action, particularly regarding funds that would have redistributed billions toward his political base.



(Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/5932296-doj-snubs-judge-weaponization-fund/?fbclid=IwdGRleASjHeNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe0RHlZAtCTd-K1VzzDlsNgkPiPV2ofZ6eegFe9bcVc_HCWwpiOljhMudJL5w_aem_qnM_3Nm8oGzpkfnt_vuGDw)

Two months after Hegseth’s regressive move, Air Force base faces major flu outbreak

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth eliminated the Pentagon’s mandatory flu vaccination requirement for service members in April 2026, reversing a longstanding military policy. Hegseth justified the change by invoking “medical autonomy,” despite the military’s historical practice of requiring up to 17 vaccinations depending on deployment location.

Less than two months after Hegseth’s policy reversal, a major flu outbreak sickened nearly 160 troops at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, with one trainee in basic training dying after falling ill. The outbreak spread rapidly through a basic military training wing where recruits sleep in open bays and share communal dining facilities, creating ideal conditions for disease transmission.

Only approximately 40% of Air Force trainees at Lackland opted to receive the flu vaccine following Hegseth’s change, compared to the previous 100% compliance rate under the mandatory policy. In response to the outbreak, Lackland received an exception from Hegseth’s directive and reinstated the flu vaccine requirement for its recruits.

Military readiness has depended on disease prevention for centuries. General George Washington mandated smallpox inoculation for all troops in 1777, a decision that historian Craig Bruce Smith credited with saving countless lives and helping ensure American survival. The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer noted that disease has killed more soldiers throughout human history than any other cause.

Despite the outbreak at Lackland, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman stated the department stands by Hegseth’s decision to end the universal flu vaccine mandate across all military bases. The contradiction between revoking the policy and then reinstating it at a single base reveals the incoherence of an approach that prioritizes ideological framing over military health and operational readiness.



(Source: https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/hegseth-vaccines-air-force-base-flu-outbreak?cid=sm_fb_maddow&fbclid=IwdGRjcAShbURleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEeL1WX56j9Hl6vJjx4fJIoH6eujjAQJaCRwTXs_bVGbG2BkkjAtjSxmHL_Nsk_aem_S_8AggQzLGIGLQ18Eg7R2w)of an approach that prioritizes ideological framing over military health and operational readiness.

Trump Files 52 Denaturalization Cases, Double Biden’s Four-Year Total

The Trump administration has filed 52 civil complaints to denaturalize naturalized citizens since taking office in 2025, more than double the 24 complaints filed during President Biden’s entire four-year term. The Justice Department announced Monday that it is moving to strip 17 naturalized individuals of their citizenship after they were convicted of crimes including sex offenses and drug dealing, framing the action as enforcing a “zero-tolerance policy” for what officials describe as abuse of the naturalization process.

To denaturalize a citizen not born in the U.S., the Justice Department must file a court notice and prove the individual misled the government by failing to disclose prior crimes during citizenship proceedings. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that “criminal aliens” who exploit naturalization by breaking the law face consequences, characterizing gaining U.S. citizenship as a privilege that can be forfeited through dishonesty in immigration proceedings. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin declared the administration would “use every lawful avenue to denaturalize and remove aliens” who he claimed have “exploited our generosity and gamed our immigration system.”

The acceleration in denaturalization cases reflects a significant shift in enforcement priorities, with the Trump administration pursuing citizenship revocation at a pace substantially exceeding the previous administration. The cases involve individuals convicted of crimes ranging from sexual offenses to drug trafficking, each requiring separate court filings and proof of fraud in the naturalization process. The administration has extended its focus toward people who have already become legal citizens, targeting those deemed to have misrepresented their backgrounds.

Officials have repeatedly warned that naturalized citizens who commit crimes could face denaturalization proceedings, establishing the administration’s intent to use citizenship status as a consequential penalty alongside criminal conviction. The Justice Department’s stated rationale emphasizes protecting American citizens from what it characterizes as criminals who obtained citizenship through deception, though the dramatic increase in filings signals an expanded interpretation of what constitutes grounds for revocation. The timeline for individual cases remains dependent on particular courts handling the denaturalization notices.(Source: https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-moved-denaturalize-citizens-entire-biden-admin/story?id=133690815)

Trump Demands Thune Fire Parliamentarian Blocking Funds

President Donald Trump attacked Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Truth Social Monday, demanding he fire Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and accusing her of treating Republicans “horribly” while favoring Democrats. Trump’s post also targeted Senator Mitch McConnell, describing him as “very disloyal” to Thune and claiming McConnell allowed MacDonough to remain in her position to direct “trillions of dollars to the Democrats.” Trump has rarely attacked McConnell during his second term, making this public strike notable.

MacDonough blocked $1 billion in taxpayer funding for Trump’s ballroom project from a budget reconciliation bill, determining it violated the Byrd Rule prohibiting non-budgetary items from passing with a simple majority vote. Trump framed her ruling as evidence of bias, claiming she would have approved the proposal “easily” and that her continued tenure prevents passage of his “SAVE AMERICA ACT.” Trump previously demanded Thune fire MacDonough after she blocked the ballroom funds, threatening Republicans they would be “looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible” if they refused.

McConnell recently contradicted Trump by denouncing his anti-weaponization fund as “morally wrong,” directly criticizing acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for requesting a “slush fund to pay people who assault cops.” McConnell, who announced last year he would not seek reelection, has positioned himself as an occasional check on Trump’s most extreme demands, though he served as Senate leader while MacDonough worked under Democratic leadership and Trump has repeatedly pressured Republicans to remove her.

The demands to remove MacDonough represent Trump’s ongoing pressure on Republican leadership to eliminate institutional guardrails protecting the budget process. MacDonough, appointed during the Obama administration, has functioned as an independent arbiter applying the Byrd Rule to both parties’ proposals. Trump’s insistence that she be replaced with someone “favorable to his agenda” directly attacks the parliamentary independence designed to maintain legislative integrity.

Government watchdog reports show donors to Trump’s ballroom project secured over $50 billion in new or expanded federal contracts within six months, demonstrating the scale of personal enrichment at stake in removing budget constraints. Trump’s personal financial interest in the ballroom funding conflicts directly with his authority over federal spending, yet he demands loyalty from Senate Republicans to override parliamentary safeguards that prevent his self-dealing.(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-takes-a-swing-at-mitch-mcconnell-in-fiery-call-for-gop-to-fire-senate-parliamentarian/)

DOJ argues Trump could ‘bulldoze’ Statue of Liberty during White House ballroom hearing – ABC News

The Justice Department defended the Trump administration’s White House ballroom project before a federal appeals court on Friday, arguing that the judiciary cannot block the construction and that no court could stop the president from demolishing any historic site, including the Statue of Liberty. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the project, which has already demolished the White House East Wing and installed over 3 million pounds of steel rebar, cannot be enjoined because moving fast enough prevents plaintiffs from establishing legal standing to challenge government action. When Judge Patricia Millett posed a hypothetical about the Statue of Liberty, Roth acknowledged the same logic applied: if the administration moved quickly enough to demolish it, the injury would become “non-redressable” and no lawsuit could proceed.

Judge Millett rebuked what she termed the administration’s “move fast and break things” approach, questioning whether speed alone could foreclose judicial review. Roth affirmed that doctrine explicitly, stating that rapid action rendering harm impossible to undo eliminates standing. The panel also heard arguments about national security, with Roth framing the ballroom as essential protection for the president against modern threats like drones, though this claim contradicts the statutes the administration initially cited, which authorize only maintenance and upkeep of the White House, not demolition and reconstruction.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation brought the lawsuit to block construction, citing its congressional charter to protect historic sites. Judge Millett appeared skeptical of the government’s position that the organization lacked standing, noting that Alison Hoagland, a National Trust board member involved in the case, had a legitimate interest in preserving the architectural integrity of the White House complex. Trump attacked Hoagland directly overnight in response to her courtroom testimony about the harm the ballroom would cause to historic design principles.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had halted construction in late March, finding Trump exceeded his authority in authorizing the ballroom. However, the appeals panel administratively stayed Leon’s order on April 17, allowing work to continue while the court considered the case. During oral arguments, Judges Bradley Garcia and Neomi Rao questioned whether the statutes cited by the administration actually granted the president power to demolish and replace structures, with Garcia noting the relevant law permits only maintenance, not improvements or reconstruction.

The case hinges on whether Trump possesses unilateral authority to modify the White House complex without congressional approval and whether courts retain power to review such decisions. The administration’s theory that rapid execution of government(Source: https://abcnews.com/amp/US/appeals-court-hear-arguments-trumps-ballroom-plans-continue/story?id=133589066) projects eliminates judicial oversight entirely represents an unprecedented assertion of executive immunity from legal challenge, one the appellate panel appeared divided on accepting.

Trump announces new coal export terminal in Oakland – Los Angeles Times

President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act on June 4, 2026, to direct nearly $700 million in federal funding toward coal infrastructure, including $75 million for a new coal export terminal at Oakland’s decommissioned Army Base. The funding will upgrade 13 existing coal plants nationwide, construct two new plants in Alaska and West Virginia, and restart a shuttered Maryland facility, with coal exports from the Oakland terminal expected to begin in summer 2028 at volumes exceeding 12 million tons annually.

Trump justified the investment as essential to national security and lowering energy costs, citing rising electricity expenses tied to artificial intelligence data center demand. Energy Secretary Chris Wright claimed the terminal would strengthen U.S. energy security and supply chains, exporting coal to allied nations including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Malaysia. However, residential electricity bills have increased nearly 11 percent since Trump returned to office in January 2025, contradicting claims that coal investment reduces costs.

Environmental and energy experts documented that the policy will increase, not decrease, utility bills and air pollution. The nonpartisan Energy Innovation report found 99 percent of U.S. coal plants are now more expensive to operate than replacement with local solar, wind, or energy storage. Margaret Gordon of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project criticized the project as unconscionable given that state and local regulators have spent millions reducing emissions in an area already experiencing disproportionate pollution from port and industrial operations.

Coal combustion generates approximately 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion and is a major driver of air pollution, releasing fine particles harmful to respiratory and cardiovascular health. Trump’s EPA weakened mercury and toxic air emission limits from coal plants in February 2026. Local opposition groups, including San Francisco Baykeeper and Sierra Club San Francisco Bay, announced plans to challenge the project in court, disputing whether coal export infrastructure qualifies as critical national defense infrastructure under the Defense Production Act and whether the federal spending represents proper use of taxpayer funds.

The Oakland terminal revives a decade-long battle over West Coast coal exports. Trump has simultaneously threatened to illegally cut billions in federal funding to California and other Democratic states, creating a pattern of weaponizing federal resources to punish jurisdictions that oppose his priorities. The project demonstrates Trump’s use of emergency powers and public funds to sustain failing fossil fuel industries while blocking renewable en(Source: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2026-06-04/trump-invokes-emergency-powers-to-invest-700-million-in-coal-including-new-export-terminal-in-california)ergy investment.

HHS Employees Now Being Measured By Loyalty To Trump’s Policies | HuffPost Latest News

The Trump administration has implemented a new performance metric at the Department of Health and Human Services requiring tens of thousands of employees to demonstrate they "clearly and demonstrably support implementation" of Trump's policy agenda as a "critical element" of their annual reviews. The requirement, titled "Faithful Support of Administration of the Law and the President's Policies," mandates that Senior Professionals prove loyalty to Trump's specific policy priorities through measurable results aligned with his agenda, fundamentally inverting the merit-based civil service system designed to serve the public rather than any individual.

Federal employees are statutorily required to serve the government and public interest, not pledge allegiance to any president's policies. HHS workers report the requirement creates fear and coercion, with one employee stating employees must "go along to get along" or face termination, effectively forcing compliance under threat of job loss. The Office of Personnel Management directed all federal agencies to adopt similar language following Trump's January executive order "Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives," making this loyalty assessment government-wide policy.

The mandate threatens the independence of HHS's Office of the Inspector General, which operates independently to identify waste, fraud, and abuse across the department. Employees in this office now face a direct conflict between the loyalty requirement and their legal mandate to expose wrongdoing, regardless of whether it implicates Trump administration policies. Trump terminated all 18 inspectors general across federal agencies within weeks of taking office, and this new performance standard consolidates his control by subordinating their investigative function to political loyalty.

Stanford presidential scholar Terry Moe identified the requirement as part of Trump's systematic assault on the administrative state, stating the administration aims to replace merit-based civil servants with loyalists throughout the executive branch. Moe emphasized this policy "flies in the face of the entire foundation of civil service, which is merit." The requirement transforms federal workers into political operatives bound to advance Trump's agenda rather than neutral administrators applying law and expertise to serve citizens.

HHS employees remain under additional pressure from ongoing government shutdown furloughs and widespread job uncertainty as Trump carries out sweeping workforce cuts. One employee expressed the cascading effect: the loyalty requirement compounds existing morale collapse, with staff unable to predict or prepare for daily directives while fearing retaliation for dissent. The policy structurally eliminates the ability of federal workers to voice concerns or apply professional judgment independent of Trump's political priorities.

(Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hhs-employees-trump-loyalty-performance-reviews_n_68ffa3b7e4b0ebfddfbaf88c)

Trump Posts Request for Pardon for Controversial Lawmaker

President Trump posted a pardon request for former Indiana Congressman Stephen Buyer, who was sentenced to 22 months in prison in 2023 for insider trading schemes in 2018 and 2019. According to the Department of Justice, Buyer "engaged in two separate, but interrelated insider trading schemes to steal material non-public information that he obtained through consulting work and to place timely, profitable securities trades based on that stolen information." Trump distributed letters on Truth Social from former Republican National Committee Chairman Robert James Nicholson and multiple Republican lawmakers, both making appeals for Buyer's pardon without offering his own comment.

The Nicholson letter characterizes Buyer's prosecution as political retaliation, claiming "the SEC and DOJ were weaponized against Congressman Buyer as political retribution." This framing mirrors language used by Trump allies to describe prosecutions of Trump himself, despite documented criminal conduct in both cases. The letter references Buyer's past Republican loyalty, including his role prosecuting President Clinton during impeachment proceedings and seeking indictment against Hillary Clinton.

A second letter signed by Republican politicians echoed the weaponization narrative, stating "The Clintons, the Bidens, their surrogates and Democrats in the deep state never forgot Steve's contributions that were an affront to their beliefs and objectives." Trump posted both letters without commentary, effectively amplifying claims that federal prosecutors acted from partisan motives rather than in response to evidence of criminal conduct.

Trump's promotion of Buyer's pardon request occurs as he uses control of the Justice Department to advance personal and corporate interests, including overseeing antitrust reviews affecting major media companies. Trump himself faces scrutiny for stock trades made while serving as commander in chief, creating direct parallel circumstances to Buyer's insider trading convictions.

The pardon push demonstrates Trump's pattern of using executive clemency to reward political allies while weaponizing the Justice Department against perceived enemies. By distributing unsigned pardon appeals without commentary, Trump signals approval while maintaining plausible deniability, a characteristic strategy employed throughout his administration to bypass accountability mechanisms and consolidate loyalty among Republican officeholders.

(Source: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-posts-appeal-for-a-pardon-by-ex-congressman-slapped-with-insider-trading-charges/)

1 2 3 … 26