Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said on Sunday that he took issue with the Democratic response in the chamber to President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging address to Congress last week.
“I think the lack of a coordinated response in the State of the Union was a mistake, and frankly, it took the focus off of where it should have been, which is on the fact that the president spoke for an hour and 40 minutes and had nothing to say about what he would do to bring down costs for American families that were watching that lengthy address sitting at the kitchen table, hoping that he would offer something to help them afford a new home or pay the rent to afford health care or child care,” Schiff said on “This Week.”
Democratic lawmakers participated in various protests during Trump’s speech. Some female members of Congress wore hot pink to show resistance. Other Democratic members held signs that called out Elon Musk. Some decided to boycott the speech or leave early.
Schiff refuted Democratic strategist James Carville’s recent proposal in a New York Times op-ed that Democrats should “roll over and play dead” and wait for Republicans “to crumble beneath their own weight,” with the California senator instead saying that the right approach is focusing on “the economic well-being of Americans.”
“We need to have our own broad, bold agenda … to answer really the central question which is, if you’re working hard in America, can you still earn a good living?” said Schiff. “We need to be advancing policies and making the arguments about what we have to offer, not simply standing back and letting them collapse of our own corrupt weight. We need to effectively use litigation as we are. We need to effectively use communication to talk to new people in new ways as we are.”
Schiff also expressed frustration and disapproval of Trump’s whiplash tariff agenda.
Trump on Tuesday imposed a 25% tariff on goods coming from Canada or Mexico. The following day, he issued a one-month delay for auto parts. By Friday, Trump signed an executive order that extended the delay to all products under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, which is a free trade agreement signed during Trump’s first term. Roughly half of Mexican imports fall under USMCA and about 38% of imports from Canada fall under the agreement.
Schiff said that Democrats have to start responding to Trump’s tariffs and economic policies more effectively.
“This is deeply destructive, what they’re doing,” he said. “We need to make that case to the American people, because they’re going to feel it. But, you know, taking our eye off the ball, I think, is very dangerous, and so let’s be focused on what matters most to Americans. Let’s point out all the destructive harms they’re doing with you know, the cutting of services, the slashing of Medicaid, and what that’s going to mean for increased health costs and less access for people.”
(WASHINGTON) — David Sacks, the White House crypto czar, said Friday that taxpayers have lost out on “over $17 billion of value” because earlier administrations never took advantage of bitcoin already in the U.S. government’s possession.
“Over the past decade or so, the federal government has come into the possession of roughly 400,000 bitcoin through civil or criminal asset forfeitures,” Sacks said in an interview with ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang on Friday. “We’ve had this very ad hoc strategy where we just would sell the bitcoin, sort of almost willy-nilly, and we sold about half of it. We only made about $400 million. Today, that bitcoin would have been worth over $17 billion, so the American taxpayer lost out on over $17 billion of value.”
Sacks’ comments follow President Donald Trump signing an executive order on Thursday that creates a strategic bitcoin reserve and U.S. digital assets stockpile. Senior White House officials said bitcoin is being treated differently from other cryptocurrencies because it is the “original” cryptocurrency and there is a finite amount.
Sacks brushed off repeated questions about whether this could pose a conflict of interest since President Donald Trump has a personal financial stake in the success of the industry after launching his own cryptocurrency company, World Liberty Financial, days before the inauguration.
“It’s not an issue,” Sacks told Wang.
When asked about Bloomberg News’ reporting that World Liberty Financial appears to have bought more than $20 million in cryptocurrency two days before the White House’s Digital Assets Summit on Friday, Sacks said: “You should talk to them about that. That’s a private company. I’m not a regulator. I’m a policy adviser for innovation. I don’t keep tabs on what individual companies are doing.”
Sacks stressed that the government is not buying any cryptocurrency, just using the cryptocurrency that has already been accumulated through criminal or civil asset forfeitures.
“Any further accumulation of bitcoin by the government has to be done in a completely budget-neutral way. It cannot add to the deficit, it cannot add to the debt, it cannot tax the American people,” Sacks said. “So this is about maximizing the value of assets that we already have on our balance sheet.”
When asked by ABC News how the government could “accumulate” more bitcoin in a budget-neutral way, Sacks said those programs don’t exist, noting the administration is still in the planning phase and that the executive order calls on the secretaries of the Department of Commerce and the Department of Treasury to “think about that.”
“It won’t cost the taxpayer dimes, but if the secretaries can figure out how to accumulate more bitcoin without costing taxpayers anything, then they are authorized to do that,” the senior White House officials added.
Sacks repeatedly compared bitcoin to U.S. holdings of gold, explaining that the U.S. won’t be selling it, unless Trump changes his mind down the road.
“We’ve got about a trillion dollars of gold in Fort Knox and our other depositories,” he said. “We don’t sell that gold, even though we could use it to pay off a trillion dollars of national debt. The reason why we don’t sell it, liquidate it all today is because we believe it’s strategic for the United States to have a stockpile or reserve of that asset.
“In a similar way, we believe it’s in the long term interest the United States to hold on to this bitcoin,” he added. “Look, if the president changes his mind at some point in the future, he could issue a new executive order and say, the secretary of the treasury, get rid of it, sell it. But we don’t want to do that.”
White House officials also noted that an official audit of the government’s digital asset holdings has never been completed but will be following the president’s executive order, allowing the administration to get a more concrete understanding of what the U.S. possesses.
(NEW YORK) — In this first episode of a new podcast published Thursday, California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, an LGBTQ ally, broke with his party, saying that transgender athletes playing in female sports is “deeply unfair.”
“I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness. It’s deeply unfair,” Newsom said on his podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom.”
Newsom’s comments came during a conversation with conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who leads conservative group Turning Point USA and played a critical role in garnering youth support for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
Newsom, sometimes viewed as a 2028 presidential hopeful, also agreed that the political ad that hurt former Vice President Kamala Harris the most in her presidential campaign was her previous support for providing taxpayer-funded gender transition-related medical care for detained immigrants and federal prisoners. Trump’s campaign had played back her remarks in a widely-circulated ad.
“She didn’t even react to it, which was even more devastating,” Newsom said.
Newsom also pointed to his own work in expanding LGBTQ rights, while referencing current law in the state of California that allows transgender athletes to participate in school sports that reflect the gender they identify with.
Newsom himself was a trailblazer in expanding LGBTQ rights: in 2004, as mayor of San Francisco, he allowed same-sex marriages to proceed even though they were not yet allowed nationwide.
He referenced that moment while discussing his alignment with Kirk’s views on transgender athletes in women’s sports.
“I’ve been a leader in the LGBTQ places, as, you know, back in 2004 [I] was marrying same sex couples. And I know we have [a] difference [of] opinion on marriage equality, and so I’ve been at this for years and years, I take a backseat to no one,” Newsom said, before discussing how he heard people talking about transgender athletes.
On the podcast, Newsom also called for compassion toward transgender individuals, even while discussing the sports issue: “There’s also humility and grace. You know, that, these poor people are more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety and depression, and the way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with as well.”
LGBTQ rights groups criticized Newsom’s remarks, saying that they came amid national backlash to transgender individuals and their rights.
The Human Rights Campaign, a major national LGBTQ rights advocacy and lobbying group, said in a statement shared on social media that with discussions nationwide in legislatures about restricting same-sex marriage or transgender rights, “this is not a moment to sit politely in the face of authoritarian bullies or throw people under the bus for political posturing.”
“Singling out trans kids to score political points is never going to help someone pay their rent, keep Medicaid or get a job, but it will make it seem like Gov. Newsom believes our civil rights are up for grabs,” the organization wrote. “Californians – and ALL Americans – need leaders who have courage in their convictions, and who will show up for them, in the faces of people who want to see us all back in the closet.”
The organization also pointed to a 2013 law in California that allowed students to be part of sport teams matching their own gender identity. The American Civil Liberties Union praised the law in 2013 as “ensuring transgender youth have the opportunity to fully participate and succeed in schools across the state.”
Newsom briefly referenced the law in his discussion with Kirk, highlighting that it was passed before he became governor.
Two members of the California state legislature, Assemblymember Chris Ward and state Sen. Caroline Menjivar, released a statement through the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus criticizing Newsom’s remarks as well, saying they were “profoundly sickened and frustrated” by what he said.
“Sometimes Gavin Newsom goes for the Profile in Courage, sometimes not,” they wrote. “We woke up profoundly sickened and frustrated by these remarks. All students deserve the academic and health benefits of sports activity, and until Donald Trump began obsessing about it, playing on a team consistent with one’s gender has not been a problem since the standard was passed in 2013.”
Newsom’s remarks came just a month after Trump signed an executive order intending on banning transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports. The White House has said the action is meant to protect women in sports from harm and from facing opponents who they say have an unfair advantage.
LGBTQ advocacy groups have criticized the administration’s action and general rhetoric as discriminatory and as having razor-sharp focus on issues of transgender rights to the exclusion of economic and other issues.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said he sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei about negotiating a nuclear deal, while also threatening military action if an agreement isn’t reached.
Trump said he sent the letter on Wednesday during an interview with Fox Business, a clip of which was released by the network on Friday.
“There are two ways Iran can be handled, militarily or you make a deal. I would prefer to make a deal,” Trump told Fox host Maria Bartiromo.
“I would rather negotiate a deal. I’m not sure that everybody agrees with me, but we can make a deal that would be just as good as if you won militarily,” Trump said. “But the time is happening now, the time is coming up. Something is going to happen one way or the other. I hope that Iran, and I’ve written them a letter, saying I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily it’s going to be a terrible thing for them.”
Bartiromo asked the president if he gave Iranian leadership an ultimatum.
“No I didn’t say, ‘You better.’ I said, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate,’ because it will be a lot better for Iran. I think they want to get that letter. The other alternative is we have to do something because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump warned.
This isn’t the first time Trump has sent a message to Khamenei. In 2019, with the help of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he sent a similar message, but the Iranian leader publicly rejected that offer to talk.
Khamenei reportedly said at the time, “I do not consider Trump as a person worth exchanging any message with.”
Trump’s comments proposing a nuclear deal come after he withdrew the U.S. from an agreement reached between Iran and the Obama administration during his first term in office. That nuclear deal, established in 2015, allowed Iran to enrich uranium only up to 3.67% purity and maintain a stockpile of uranium of 300 kilograms.
Last month, Trump signed a memorandum that seeks to exert “maximum pressure” on Iran, including pushing its oil exports down to zero in order to stop Tehran from possessing nuclear weapons capability.
“I’m going to sign it, but hopefully we’re not going to have to use it very much. We will see whether or not we can arrange or work out a deal with Iran,” he said.
Asked about what kind of deal he’d like to see, Trump responded: “We’re going to see. They cannot have a nuclear weapon. With me, it’s very simple: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
As he spoke on the issue in the Oval Office, Trump also said he’s left instructions to “obliterate” Iran if they ever carried out an assassination.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Friday said he would turn up the heat on Russia until it reaches a ceasefire and peace deal with Ukraine.
Trump threatened Russia with sanctions and tariffs in a Truth Social post.
“Based on the fact that Russia is absolutely ‘pounding’ Ukraine on the battlefield right now, I am strongly considering large scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED. To Russia and Ukraine, get to the table right now, before it is too late. Thank you,” he posted without further details.
The Biden administration previously issued sanctions on Russia after it invaded Ukraine three years ago.
Trump has come under criticism for not being tough on Putin during his negotiations with Russia and Ukraine to end the conflict. He has falsely and repeatedly claimed that Ukraine started the war.
The president’s post came hours after Russia launched a major attack on Ukraine in which it deployed 261 missiles and drones that targeted energy and gas infrastructure in various regions, according to Ukrainian officials.
The Trump administration also paused military aid and intelligence data with Ukraine this week, following last week’s explosive argument between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(LAS VEGAS) — To Cherie DeVille, one of the adult entertainment industry’s most popular stars, pornography — and its easy accessibility online — is a fundamental freedom protected by the First Amendment.
“This isn’t a whim or something that I’m going to do for a week. I love this job,” said the former physical therapist turned sex worker who has millions of followers on social media. “It’s very good business for me.”
To parents with young children, like Dawn Hawkins of Virginia, America’s multibillion-dollar porn juggernaut is a social poison infiltrating families via the internet.
“How are we going to teach our children healthy intimacy and boundaries and consent when what they’re viewing across multiple platforms is sharing really the opposite message,” said Hawkins, who wants stricter controls for sexually-explicit content.
The age-old debate over the widespread availability of pornography in America will enter a new phase this spring as the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether states can legally require websites hosting adult content to perform electronic age verification of all users.
A green light for online age checks could dramatically alter how millions of U.S. adults access sexually explicit content on their phones, tablets, and computers and potentially build a more stringent safety barrier for children than what currently exists.
The decision will come at a time when hardcore porn is booming business and easier to obtain than ever before, with the rapid proliferation of adult film studios, live camera websites, social media platforms, and online networks of amateur creators. Many sites have no paywall or age verification gateways.
“It’s not a matter of if my kids are going to be exposed to pornography. It’s a matter of when. It’s definitely going to happen,” said Hawkins, a mother of 5 who also heads the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which has led an effort to crack down on the porn industry.
Hawkins and many national parent organizations have voiced growing concern in recent years that software filters and parental controls on personal electronics – installed by manufacturers and long considered the primary line of defense for families – have not been effective at keeping explicit content from kids.
More than 70% of men and 40% of women say they’ve consumed sexually explicit content in the past year, according to a recent study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. American teens have reported similar levels of exposure in studies reviewed by ABC News.
Public health experts say young people who view sexually explicit content are more likely to start having sex earlier, engage in unsafe sex, and have multiple partners.
“As long as we’re prioritizing adults’ access to this content and not also prioritizing children’s safety, we are going to destroy the next generation,” said Hawkins. “We are just asking that the pornography companies put a fence around it and make sure that those accessing this content are of age.”
Nineteen states have recently passed laws mandating that sites containing sexually-explicit material harmful to children require all users to upload a copy of their digital or government ID, or perform a biometric scan, in order to verify that they are over 18. Legislators say the measures are common sense steps similar to age checks at brick-and-mortar stores.
“It’s possible to prove your age entirely on your own cell phone. So, no personal data need ever leave the palm of your hand,” said Iain Corby, executive director of the Age Verification Providers Association, an industry trade group that sells technology to adult websites.
Third-party apps — used widely by porn sites across Europe — can make the verification process fast, free, and secure for consumers, Corby said.
“The simple case might be using a driver’s license. So you would be redirected to an agency’s website, and then once you’ve done a photo of your I.D., you do a selfie. And then we check that the two match,” Corby said. “We just tell that website that you’re over 18 – not your name, not your face, and not even your actual date of birth. Just that you were over 18.
“Another option works in a very similar way to facial estimation, but in fact, it’s based on how you move your hands,” added Corby, demonstrating the biometric scan technology for ABC News.
The porn industry, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, says online age-verification requirements are unconstitutional, infringing on adult rights by putting privacy at risk and impeding access to legal content.
Decades of Supreme Court precedent have upheld the constitutionality of pornographic material and adults’ right to access it. In two separate cases, the court previously ruled that the government can’t mandate age verification of users online before allowing them to see explicit material.
“Whenever the government is passing a law in the name of protecting kids, I think there are serious questions to be asked about whether what it’s really doing is saying this speech is bad for everyone,” said Vera Eidelman, an ACLU attorney. “And that’s exactly what the First Amendment exists to protect against.”
Industry advocates say the onus should remain on parents and technology companies, which they claim have the capacity to install smarter content filters and other safety monitoring controls on devices used by kids.
“Kids are going to do what they’re going to do. You know, you don’t ban alcohol because kids can get a fake ID or because they can drink from their parents’ liquor cabinet,” said Ken Fields, an adult film actor who opposes electronic age verification laws. “You do the best you can to try to keep that from happening within reason without infringing on the legal rights of legal adults and citizens.”
The Texas law at issue before the Supreme Court applies to websites with more than one-third of sexually-explicit content harmful to children. It does not apply to search engines or social media sites. Critics say it could also limit teenagers’ access to public health and sexual health resources unrelated to porn.
“I think their heart is in the right place. The execution is not there,” said Nick from Colorado, an attendee at the AVN Expo in Las Vegas last month, the nation’s annual adult entertainment convention. “There’s a way to do it, it’s just not the way it’s being done.”
Several participants, who all declined to share their last names, told ABC News they worried about a loss of anonymity when surfing to adult websites. “If you do absolutely upload your driver’s license, who gets it? So where does that information go?” said Meredith from Tennessee.
“There’s a lot of ways you can get shamed, whether it’s at work or other places,” said Brett from Florida. “It’s more of a privacy concern than anything else.”
During Supreme Court oral arguments last month in a major test case from Texas, a majority of justices appeared sympathetic to the states’ efforts to limit kids’ exposure to sexually explicit material, despite long standing precedent opposing overly burdensome requirements on adults, including electronic age checks.
A decision is expected by the end of June.
“It’s going to be a massive amount of monetary loss, and I think you’re going to see an explosion of illegal, unethical porn because they don’t care and they won’t comply,” said DeVille. “I do not care what you think about porn. This should terrify you because this is a massive government overstep in one of our most cherished things in the United States.”
To Hawkins, a favorable decision would be a sigh of relief.
“The burden can’t only be on parents,” she said of the need to keep children away from pornography. “Something like demanding age verification on these nefarious websites is such a simple, commonsense measure that that would drastically help protect kids from exposure.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Veterans Affairs is preparing to lay off as many as 80,000 workers in the coming weeks in the latest phase of the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the federal workforce, according to an internal memo obtained by ABC News.
VA Secretary Doug Collins later confirmed the planned cuts in a video posted to X, saying the agency is aiming for a 15% workforce cut that could begin in the coming months.
Collins said the VA will continue to hire for open “mission critical” positions while the agency downsizes in other areas, so that “health care and benefits for VA beneficiaries are not impacted.”
“We regret anyone who loses their job, and it’s extraordinarily difficult for me as a VA leader, and your secretary, to make these types of decisions. But the federal government does not exist to employ people. It exists to serve people,” Collins said.
Top Republicans and Democrats raised concerns with the plans and how they might be implemented.
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, said on X that that “the Department of Veterans Affairs is in need of reform but current efforts to downsize the department and increase efficiency must be done in a more responsible manner.”
“I expect the VA to work with Congress to right size the VA workforce and allow us to legislate necessary changes,” he added.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the panel, criticized the announcement, saying the “plan prioritizes private sector profits over veterans’ care, balancing the budget on the backs of those who served.”
In a March 4 memo to senior agency leaders, chief of staff Christopher Syrek said the VA’s “initial objective is to return to our 2019-end strength numbers of 399,957 employees” as part of the Department of Government Efficiency-led wave of large-scale firings and reorganization of agencies.
“VA, in partnership with our DOGE leads, will move out aggressively, while taking a pragmatic and disciplined approach to identify and eliminate waste, reduce management and bureaucracy, reduce footprint, and increase workplace efficiency,” Syrek said in the memo obtained by ABC News.
Already, the VA has said it has dismissed 2,400 probationary workers — although some were subsequently hired back to the agency, workers and lawmakers told ABC News.
Agencies are required to submit the first piece of their reorganization plans — with proposals for potential layoffs — to the Office of Personnel Management by March 13.
The VA did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
Even as the VA prepares to trim its workforce, the agency has faced setbacks in other cost-cutting efforts.
On Wednesday, Collins announced that the agency had saved $900 million by canceling more than 500 “non mission critical and duplicative” contracts, after initially claiming the agency had identified $2 billion in contracts for potential savings.
The agency has faced internal resistance to the contract cuts — some of which directly support medical care and facilities — and has reversed the cancellation of many of the initial batch of more than 800 originally identified for cuts.
(WASHINGTON) — The House voted on Thursday to censure Democrat Al Green over his outburst at President Donald Trump’s speech to Congress on Tuesday night.
The Republican-led effort passed 224-198 with two members voting present, one of them being Green. Ten Democrats voted on the resolution to censure Green.
The Texas Democrat was immediately called to the well for a public reading of the resolution by Speaker Mike Johnson. Green and other Democrats surrounding him there began singing the civil rights anthem “We Shall Overcome.”
After Johnson read the censure resolution, a screaming match between House Democrats and Republicans broke out and is still ongoing.
Green was ejected from the joint session on Tuesday after interrupting the president’s speech and refusing to sit down despite warnings from Johnson.
By Wednesday morning, several members of the GOP conference were circulating different resolutions to censure Green. Republican Rep. Dan Newhouse was the first to formally introduce a resolution on the House floor.
“Decorum and order are the institutional grounds for the way we do business in the United States Congress, and the sheer disregard for that standard during President Trump’s address by the gentleman from Texas is unacceptable,” Newhouse said in a statement. “A Member’s refusal to adhere to the Speaker’s direction to cease such behavior, regardless of their party, has and will continue to be reprimanded in the people’s House.”
Democrats tried and failed on Wednesday evening to block the censure measure.
A censure resolution is a formal reprimand by the House for violations of the chamber’s code of conduct. A vote to censure a member of the House does not hold any power beyond a public condemnation of the member’s behavior and it does not deny the member privileges.
Censuring House members has been historically rare, but in the last few years we’ve seen members from both political parties use this as a political tool. Green is the fifth member of Congress to be censured in this decade.
Green on Wednesday defended his actions, saying, “I would do it again.”
“I am not angry with the speaker. I am not angry with the officers. I am not upset with the members who are going to bring the motions or resolutions to sanction. I will suffer the consequences,” he said.
Green’s outburst happened within minutes of Trump’s address, when the president called his electoral victory a “mandate.”
Green, an 11-term Democrat representing the Houston area, stood up and pointed his cane as he shouted, “You have no mandate to cut Medicaid.”
Johnson slammed his gavel and gave a warning to lawmakers assembled to maintain decorum, telling Green several times to take his seat. As Green continued to protest, Johnson called for him to be removed.
Green is not the only lawmaker to interrupt a presidential address to Congress. In 2022, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert repeatedly interrupted then-President Joe Biden’s speech. Greene did it again during Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address. On “Good Morning America” on Wednesday, Johnson defended his decision to have Green removed.
“Al Green was trying to interrupt the entire proceeding. But look, I’ll just say this. If the Democrats want a 77-year-old congressman to be the face of their resistance, heckling the president, then bring it on,” he said.
Green told ABC News late Tuesday night he was “following the wishes of conscience.”
“There are times when it it better to stand alone than not stand at all,” Green said. He added, “At some point, we’re all going to have to stand up.”
As Donald Trump seeks to reshape the federal government at breakneck speed, his administration has encountered a flood of litigation challenging the legality of its early actions in office.
With more than 100 federal lawsuits filed since the inauguration, Trump and his administration have effectively been sued three times for every business day he has occupied the Oval Office.
Approximately 30 of the 100 lawsuits relate to Trump’s immigration policies, while more than 20 of the cases directly challenge the actions of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. Ten of the cases challenge Trump policies relating to transgender people, and more than 20 cases oppose the president’s unilateral changes to federal funding, government hiring and the structure of agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
With Trump signing more than 75 executive orders since taking office, the unprecedented flood of litigation has yielded mixed results in blocking the president’s unilateral efforts to reshape the federal government. His attempts to freeze funding or rewrite longstanding laws have generally been blocked, but some federal judges have implicitly given him the green light to carry out part of his plan to reshape the federal workforce.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour — who was nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan — handed the Trump administration one of its first legal defeats by blocking Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship and offered one of the fiercest criticisms of his presidency’s early actions.
“It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” Judge Coughenour said. “There are moments in the world’s history when people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers, where were the judges? In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today.”
But other judges have stopped short of fully blocking policies they believe might be unlawful, demonstrating how a slower-moving judiciary can be outpaced by a rapidly moving administration. In a case challenging the Trump administration’s effort to fire thousands of probationary employees, U.S. District Judge William Alsup rebuked the administration’s actions but did not step in to stop the indiscriminate firing of employees, despite acknowledging its ongoing harm.
“That’s just not right in our country – that we run our agencies with lies like that and stain somebody’s record for the rest of their life? Who is going to want to work in a government that would do that to them? Probationary employees are the lifeblood of our government,” he said.
The number of lawsuits appear to have tested the limits of the court’s ability to hear emergency applications, particularly in the District Court in D.C., where 51 of the cases have been brought. During one contentious hearing, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes threatened to sanction a lawyer who pushed the court to accept an emergency appeal while court staff had been “working around the clock on really monumental time sensitive issues,” Reyes said.
“Why on earth could you not have figured that out with the defendants before coming and burdening me and burdening the defendants and burning my staff on this issue?” Reyes told Seth Waxman, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President Bill Clinton who is now representing eight former inspectors general fired by Trump.
Lawsuits challenging the Trump administration have reached the Supreme Court twice, and the Department of Justice has begun their appeals to the Circuit Court in approximately a dozen cases.
While no judge has found that the president has openly defied a court order, the Trump administration has found itself in hot water for failing to comply with multiple court orders, including orders to stop unilaterally freezing funding to states and holding back more than $1.9 billion in foreign aid.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court narrowly denied the Trump administration’s request to block that payment, marking the first time during this administration that the Supreme Court ruled against the president who nominated three of the court’s nine justices. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito remarked that he was “stunned” by the decision.
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise,” Alito said.
Alito’s criticism comes as Trump’s allies including Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk have criticized the power of judiciary to slow some of the administration’s agenda. Vance publicly suggested defying a court order, and Musk is increasingly calling for the judges who block the administration to be impeached.
“The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges. No one is above the law, including judges,” Musk said in a recent post on X.
While the first two months of the Trump administration has yielded a torrent of lawsuits, the cases themselves are expected to take months and potentially years to play out as the courts weigh the limits of Trump’s authority.
(WASHINGTON) — The Democratic mayors of Boston, Chicago, Denver and New York City on Wednesday pushed back against House Republicans’ claims that they are harboring dangerous immigrants and violating immigration laws as so-called “sanctuary cities.”
During a House Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and New York City Mayor Eric Adams all defended their actions on immigration enforcement in their respective cities as Republicans on the committee accused them of increasing crime and impeding on law enforcement actions.
Chairman James Comer, a Republican, said these mayors lead towns that have policies that only create “sanctuary for criminals” and promised to hold them accountable for “their failure to follow the law and protect the American people.” Comer and other Republicans on the committee suggested that the mayors should be doing more to cooperate with the Trump administration and its deportation efforts.
Sanctuary cities still enforce U.S. federal immigration laws, but the term often refers to a limited collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while enacting policies that are more favorable to undocumented people.
“As mayor, I do not control who enters or remains in our country, but I do have to manage the population that is within our city,” said Adams, who said as New York City mayor he is working with the Trump administration on immigration aid. “In order to carry out this function without having long term negative ramification, I must create an atmosphere that allows every law-abiding resident, documented or not, to access vital services without fear of being turned over to federal authorities.”
Wu said that the Trump administration is making “hard-working, tax-paying, God-fearing residents afraid to live their lives.”
“A city that scared is not a city that’s safe. A land ruled by fear is not the land of the free,” Wu said.
Democrats immediately criticized the Trump administration, arguing the overreach of federal officials has led to unlawful detentions and created fear in communities.
“Let’s be clear, the state and local laws that Republicans have issue with today are in full compliance with federal law. They do not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties, and they are backed by evidence demonstrating that they keep people safe,” Ranking Member Gerry Connolly said.
Wednesday’s committee hearing comes as President Donald Trump’s administration officials have ramped up their immigration enforcement efforts with Attorney General Pam Bondi shutting down federal grants to sanctuary cities and multiple threats from “border czar” Tom Homan toward these mayors if they refuse to comply.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, Homan criticized Boston and its police commissioner, saying he’ll be “bringing hell” to the city over its sanctuary city policy.
“Let’s talk about Tom Homan,” Wu said Wednesday. “Shame on him for lying about my city, for having the nerve to insult our police commissioner who has overseen the safest Boston’s been in anyone’s lifetime. Bring him here under oath, and let’s ask him some questions.”
The mayors pushed back heavily on assertions from Republicans that they are welcoming criminals into their cities, blaming the Trump administration for labeling immigrants as criminals and pushing misleading crime statistics.
“If you wanted to make us safe, pass gun reforms,” Wu later added. “Stop cutting Medicaid. Stop cutting cancer research. Stop cutting funds for veterans. That is what will make our cities safe.”
Many Republican lawmakers pointed to specific incidents in each of the mayor’s cities about U.S. citizens getting injured or killed at the hands of undocumented people, attempting to dispel the mayors’ arguments.
Republican Rep. Jim Jordan got in a contentious back-and-forth with Johnston involving a Venezuelan gang member who injured officers during an arrest. Due to the state’s sanctuary city policy, police were forced to arrest the man in public rather than travel into the jail to detain him, something the Republicans criticized.
Republican Rep. Nancy Mace had harsh words for the mayors, saying “you all have blood on your hands” over deaths and injuries at the hands of these undocumented people.
“All of the mayors here today are actively working to harm the American people you represent,” Mace said. “You all have blood on your hands.”
