Category: Ignorance of Law

Trump Halts Federal Funding to States Harboring Sanctuary

President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that beginning February 1, he will withhold federal funding from states that contain local governments limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Trump made the declaration during a speech at the Detroit Economic Club, stating that sanctuary jurisdictions “protect criminals at the expense of American citizens” and that the administration would cease payments to “anybody that supports sanctuary cities.” When pressed by reporters on which funding programs would be affected, Trump declined specifics, saying only “You’ll see. It’ll be significant.”

This represents an expansion of Trump’s previous threats, which targeted sanctuary cities directly rather than entire states housing them. The Justice Department published a list identifying roughly three dozen states, cities, and counties as sanctuary jurisdictions—a list dominated by Democratic-controlled areas including California, Connecticut, New York, Boston, and Cook County, Illinois. No strict legal definition of “sanctuary city” exists, though the term generally refers to jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Courts have blocked Trump’s funding cutoff attempts twice before. In 2017, during his first term, federal judges rejected similar efforts. Last year, a California-based federal judge struck down an executive order directing federal officials to withhold money from sanctuary jurisdictions, despite government arguments that it was premature to halt the plan when no concrete action had been taken. The administration has already begun targeting specific states through other agencies, with the Department of Health and Human Services halting childcare subsidies to five Democratic-led states over unspecified fraud allegations—a decision a court has placed on hold.

The Trump administration is simultaneously executing broader funding freezes across multiple programs. The Justice Department’s sanctuary cities working group lost all members amid Trump pressure, and the Department of Agriculture has threatened to reduce administrative funds for states refusing to provide Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program data. Minnesota faces particularly aggressive action, including a threat to withhold $515 million quarterly—equivalent to one-fourth of federal Medicaid funding—for fourteen programs labeled “high risk” after the state rejected the administration’s corrective action plan.

Border Patrol operations continue under Trump’s aggressive immigration policies, with the administration weaponizing federal agencies to coerce compliance from state and local governments. State officials are mounting legal challenges to these actions, though the cumulative effect of simultaneous funding threats across healthcare, nutrition assistance, and childcare programs creates immediate pressure on Democratic-controlled jurisdictions.

(Source: https://abc7.com/post/trump-threatens-halt-federal-money-next-month-sanctuary-cities-states/18398676/)

Trump Declares He Is the Absolute Law

During a January 8, 2026 interview with The New York Times, President Trump declared that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his “own morality,” explicitly rejecting international law as a binding constraint on military action. When asked if any limits exist on his global powers, Trump stated: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” and added, “I don’t need international law.” This represents Trump’s most direct acknowledgment of his worldview that national strength, rather than laws and treaties, should determine outcomes when powers collide.

When pressed on whether his administration must abide by international law, Trump affirmed compliance while immediately undermining that commitment by declaring himself the arbiter of when such constraints apply to the United States. “It depends what your definition of international law is,” Trump said, signaling his refusal to accept external legal frameworks as binding. This pattern reflects Trump’s broader approach to governance: acknowledging formal constraints while asserting personal authority to override them based on his subjective judgment.

Trump’s framing of unrestricted executive power extends across military, economic, and political instruments. He acknowledged deploying the National Guard to cities against state and local objections and has pursued what he describes as a maximalist strategy targeting institutions he dislikes, exacting retribution against political opponents, and coercing foreign nations through threatened military action. During the interview, Trump took a call from Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who expressed concern over Trump’s repeated threats of military action, mirroring Trump’s pattern of using unpredictability and force as coercion tools.

Trump’s rejection of international law as limiting his authority eliminates foundational constraints on executive power that have structured U.S. foreign policy for decades. His explicit statement that only his personal morality constrains his actions removes any institutional, legal, or constitutional check on military decisions, invasion, or coercion of other nations. This stance directly contradicts the constitutional framework requiring checks and balances and the international legal obligations the United States has accepted.

The interview reveals Trump’s authoritarian conception of presidential authority unchecked by law, institutional independence, or external legal frameworks. His assertion that he personally determines the meaning and applicability of international law consolidates decision-making power entirely in his hands, eliminating separation of powers and the rule of law as governing principles of his administration.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-power-morality.html)

Trump Claims All Biden Autopen Documents and Pardons Void

Donald Trump has declared that all documents, proclamations, and executive orders signed by President Joe Biden using an autopen are “null, void, and of no further force or effect.” This sweeping statement was made on Trump’s Truth Social platform, indicating that he aims to invalidate Biden’s actions during his presidency.

Trump’s post also includes anyone who received pardons under Biden, including Hunter Biden, asserting that these legal documents are terminated and lack any legal standing. This marks a continuation of Trump’s unfounded attacks on Biden’s use of the autopen, which he alleges was employed to conceal Biden’s cognitive abilities and wrongly exert executive authority.

In previous statements, Trump labeled Biden’s use of the autopen as a dangerous scandal, arguing that it misled the public and obscured who was truly exercising executive power. Trump has recently suggested that the use of an autopen signifies that Biden was not adequately informed about the documents being signed.

This baseless claim reflects Trump’s ongoing strategy of undermining the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency while furthering his rhetoric against perceived political adversaries. His allegations lack credible evidence and contribute to a narrative designed to refocus attention away from his own controversies.

As Trump’s statements escalate, they signify an attempt not only to discredit Biden but also to galvanize his supporters around a conspiracy theory that lacks factual basis, potentially undermining trust in the presidency and democratic institutions.

Leavitt Claims Soldiers Should Not Question Orders’ Legality

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt asserted that U.S. soldiers should not question the legality of their orders, defining such questioning as detrimental to military command. Speaking on Fox News, Leavitt criticized Democrats for allegedly encouraging active duty service members to defy orders from their commander-in-chief and claimed no orders given by the current administration have been illegal.

Leavitt’s remarks come despite the fact that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) permits service members to be held accountable for following unlawful orders, which can include serious crimes like murder and assault. The UCMJ explicitly states that service members have a legal obligation to refuse orders that are against the law, highlighting a crucial tension with Leavitt’s assertions.

In her comments, Leavitt emphasized the importance of maintaining a strict chain of command in military operations, suggesting that doubt about the legality of orders could disrupt military effectiveness. Yet, her statements have been met with skepticism given the established legal framework governing military conduct.

Leavitt’s insistence that the administration has always acted within legal bounds raises important questions about accountability in the face of illegal orders, especially as historical instances have shown commands interpreted as unlawful can occur. This situation highlights a tension within military ethics and the executive’s role in issuing orders.

Critics have pointed out that Leavitt’s remarks seem to downplay the significant legal responsibilities that service members carry, as well as their duty to uphold the law even when under command. This debate underscores the ongoing struggles surrounding leadership and legal adherence in the military context under the current administration.

Donald Trump Erupts Against Supreme Court

Donald Trump has publicly erupted against the Supreme Court as it deliberates his authority to impose tariffs. He expressed his frustration on his social media platform, Truth Social, questioning why he, as president, can enact measures as drastic as stopping all trade with a foreign nation but cannot impose tariffs for national security. This startling assertion reflects his misunderstanding of the foundational principles underpinning U.S. governance.

The Supreme Court recently began hearing arguments challenging Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify his tariffs, prompting skepticism among the justices about the legality of his claims. This critical judicial review suggests a growing concern regarding Trump’s interpretation of executive power and trade regulation, leading to increased public speculation about the possible outcomes.

Trump’s panicked response indicates significant anxiety over the potential judicial ruling against his tariff policy, which he has boasted is beneficial for American business. His erratic declarations imply that he views tariffs as essential for national economic health, despite the legal challenges they pose. This reflects his tendency to conflate policy success with personal legacy, often disregarding established legal frameworks.

In a fit of rage, Trump lamented that other nations can impose tariffs on the U.S. but not vice versa, suggesting a perceived bias in the judicial system. His failed logic demonstrates his ability to manipulate facts to mount a defense, even as the legal grounds for his actions remain dubious. The justices’ skepticism could lead to a decisive ruling undermining his administration’s tariff policies.

As the court weighs its options, Trump’s volatility raises questions about the implications of his policies. The outcome could potentially reshape his economic agenda and alter the trajectory of U.S. foreign trade relations. The anxious rhetoric Trump uses reflects an increasingly authoritarian grip on power, undermining the established checks and balances intended to preserve American democracy.

Trump Threatens SNAP Benefits Amidst Ongoing Government Shutdown

Donald Trump has stated that he will withhold SNAP benefits until the government shutdown ends, demonstrating his contempt for the 42 million Americans who rely on this crucial support. Despite a recent court order mandating the administration to continue paying out SNAP benefits, Trump’s proclamation on Truth Social seems aimed at manipulating the situation for political gain. He has expressed that the funds would only be disbursed once the “Radical Left Democrats open up government,” showcasing a blatant disregard for the judiciary and the welfare of struggling families.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt immediately contradicted Trump, clarifying that the administration is indeed complying with the court order. Leavitt’s remarks underscore a significant disconnect within the Trump administration, as she had to reassure the public that funds would eventually be released, albeit with a delay, due to the ongoing government shutdown. This highlights the chaos and instability that accompanies Trump’s leadership, wherein the president’s own statements raise confusion amid a crisis.

The ongoing government shutdown, which began on October 1, has led to dire consequences for low-income families who depend on SNAP for their basic nutritional needs. Due to this political stalemate, federal assistance for new applicants may be significantly impacted as emergency funds are being drained to provide for those currently enrolled. The ramifications of this shutdown might extend beyond immediate funding issues, particularly if it drags on to set a record as the longest shutdown in U.S. history.

Trump’s administration initially intended to halt SNAP funding altogether starting November 1, further exacerbating the challenges faced by families already struggling to make ends meet. Although a federal judge intervened, ordering the resumption of benefits, Trump’s attempt to sway public opinion against Democrats illustrates his strategy of using vulnerable Americans as pawns in his political maneuvering.

The prospect of this shutdown becoming a historical event reflects Trump’s inability to govern effectively, as he prioritizes political posturing over the well-being of millions. It is crucial to highlight the direct effects of Trump’s actions: he is perpetuating a war on the poor, further deepening the vulnerabilities of those who require assistance during challenging times.

Trump Claims Power to Jail Flag Burners for One Year

President Donald Trump’s recent assertion that anyone burning the American flag will be subject to one year of imprisonment showcases his blatant disregard for constitutional protections. This claim, made during an address on his Truth Social platform, suggests he believes he has the authority to enforce such punitive measures against an act deemed protected speech by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court initially ruled against state and federal laws banning flag burning in 1989, establishing that such actions fall under the scope of First Amendment rights. Trump’s attempt to circumvent this landmark ruling underscores his pattern of authoritarianism and his troubling belief in unchecked power.

In his statement, Trump referred to a supposed executive order which he claims empowers law enforcement and military personnel to arrest flag burners. However, legal experts widely criticize this assertion as lacking any real legal basis, emphasizing that the Bill of Rights remains unchanged and has not been amended to support Trump’s claims.

Floyd Abrams, a respected First Amendment attorney, indicated that Trump’s efforts to limit free speech through intimidation tactics are not likely to withstand judicial scrutiny. Constitutional advocates warn that such rhetoric poses a significant threat to civil liberties and the foundational principles of American democracy.

This incident is just another episode in Trump’s ongoing campaign against dissent and opposition, continuing a troubling trend where he seeks to define patriotism on his terms while neglecting the constitutional rights that protect all Americans, regardless of their viewpoints.

Trump Proposes Controversial Executive Order Mandating Voter ID

Donald Trump announced plans for an executive order mandating voter identification across the U.S., a move anticipated to face significant legal challenges. He stated unequivocally that “Voter ID must be part of every single vote. NO EXCEPTIONS!” This announcement aligns with his long-standing narrative that voter fraud is pervasive, despite a lack of substantiated evidence supporting such claims since his electoral loss in 2020.

The proposed order is part of Trump’s broader agenda to eliminate mail-in voting, except for specific categories such as the military or individuals in poor health. Trump’s insistence on voter ID laws builds on a foundation of previously debunked assertions about fraud that have spurred numerous states to implement stricter voting regulations in alignment with his rhetoric.

Voter ID laws vary considerably from state to state, but many Republican-dominated states have moved to escalate their requirements. As of 2025, 36 states have some form of voter identification requirement, targeting populations such as people of color, the elderly, and students, who are statistically less likely to possess the required IDs. Studies indicate that racial minorities are disproportionately affected by these stringent regulations, thus further suppressing their voting rights.

Critics argue that Trump’s moves are unconstitutional, as the U.S. Constitution does not empower the president to regulate elections. Legal complications are likely forthcoming, as states have already challenged Trump’s authority in this arena. Previous efforts by Trump to adjust election protocols, such as requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, have been halted by the courts, raising questions about the legitimacy and enforceability of this latest order.

In March 2025, Trump’s attempt to mandate a passport or government ID for voter registration was met with widespread opposition and subsequent legal battles, with judges declaring many aspects of his order unconstitutional. The ongoing legal disputes illustrate the precarious nature of these executive measures, setting the stage for conflicts over state sovereignty and election management.

(h/t: https://time.com/7313626/trump-voter-id-executive-order/)

Trump’s Dangerous Attack on Birthright Citizenship and Support for Capitol Rioters

Donald Trump has made yet another outrageous pledge, this time vowing to dismantle birthright citizenship in the United States. His promise to abolish this fundamental right, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, is rooted in a xenophobic agenda that appeals to his far-right base. This move is not merely a political stunt; it reflects an ongoing effort to undermine the rights of immigrants and minorities.

By targeting birthright citizenship, Trump is following in the footsteps of white nationalists and the KKK, who have historically been the only groups to voice concerns over this constitutional guarantee. This reveals the true nature of Trump’s immigration policies, which are driven by a fear-mongering narrative that seeks to instill division and hatred among Americans.

Moreover, Trump’s promise to pardon those involved in the January 6th Capitol riots demonstrates his blatant disregard for the rule of law. His continued endorsement of violent insurrectionists highlights a dangerous trajectory toward authoritarianism, as he attempts to rewrite the narrative of accountability and justice in America.

It is crucial to note that Trump’s attempts to amend birthright citizenship through executive action are futile, as substantial changes to the Constitution cannot be achieved through such means. His lack of understanding of the legal framework surrounding these rights further exemplifies his incompetence and recklessness.

Trump’s rhetoric and policy proposals are not just misguided; they represent a direct threat to the values of equality and justice that the United States stands for. His actions perpetuate a culture of hate and division, undermining the very fabric of American democracy.

(h/t: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj30er1d6mxo.amp)

Trump Says He Will ‘Negotiate’ Third Term Because He’s ‘Entitled’ To It

Donald Trump recently declared at a rally in Minden, Nevada, that he intends to “negotiate” for a third presidential term if he wins in 2024, citing a sense of entitlement due to perceived wrongs against him during his presidency. During this gathering, Trump asserted that he is “probably entitled” to another four years, which raises significant concerns about his understanding of constitutional limits.

The legal framework around presidential terms is solidified in the 22nd Amendment, which forbids anyone from serving more than two terms. Trump’s suggestion to pursue a third term reflects an alarming disregard for democratic norms and an inclination to bypass established laws. This puts him alongside other authoritarian figures who seek to extend their grip on power against the will of the electorate.

Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen harshly criticized these remarks, emphasizing that they should not be underestimated as mere jokes. Cohen warned that Trump’s sentiments indicate a desire to transform from a president into a “ruler” or “dictator,” potentially willing to alter the Constitution to achieve this goal. Cohen characterized Trump’s admiration for authoritarian leaders such as Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un as a clear indicator of his own ambitions.

Such assertions mirror similar statements from Trump back in August, wherein he invoked conspiracy theories involving his campaign being “spied on” to justify his claim that he deserves additional terms. These notions serve not only to erode trust in electoral processes but also to foster a dangerous rhetoric that aligns with Republican fascism.

Trump’s talks about extending his presidency underscore a recurring theme within Republican politics—an eagerness to undermine democratic checks and balances. This adds to a troubling narrative where powerful individuals evade accountability, leveraging their influence to perpetuate a status quo that dilutes the very principles of American democracy.

(h/t: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/13/trump-says-he-will-negotiate-third-term-because-hes-entitled-to-it/)

1 2 3 … 17