This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In an interview Tuesday, President Trump vowed to look into the fact the U.S. Justice Department is still officially opposing the $30 million wrongful-death lawsuit brought by Aaron Babbitt, the husband of Ashli Babbitt, the woman shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer Jan. 6, 2021.
Speaking to Greg Kelly of Newsmax, Trump said he also plans to look into Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, the man who gunned down Babbitt outside the House Speaker's Lobby, and the government's treatment and remuneration of the officer.
"I am a big fan of Ashli Babbitt, and Ashli Babbitt was a really good person," Trump told Kelly. "She was innocently standing there … and a man did something to her that was unthinkable when he shot her, and I think it's a disgrace. I am going to look into that."
Kelly mentioned the DOJ's opposition to the 2024 lawsuit, to which Trump responded, "You're just telling me that for the first time. I haven't heard that."
Watch a portion of Kelly's interview with President Trump.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Constitution specifically sets up the Supreme Court.
It does not do the same with lower courts: It leaves that up the Congress, a fact that House Speaker Mike Johnson has pointed out to a list of activist judges who have delivered partisan injunctions against President Donald Trump's agenda, injunctions that follow a leftist partisan line and encroach on the authorities of the executive branch.
"We do have authority over the federal courts," he explained. "We can eliminate an entire district court."
A report in the Daily Mail called the comment a "pointed warning to judges nationwide as local courts have slowed the rollout of Donald Trump's political agenda."
Johnson explained, "We do have power over funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act."
The publication called the comment a "veiled reminder, if not threat, that Congress has their eyes on district judges that have issued injunctions and rulings against Trump's policies."
District judges, in fact, have taken over executive branch decision-making regarding DOGE, spending, hiring of executive branch employees, immigration, deportation of criminal illegal aliens, international policy, and much more.
There already have been moves to begin impeachment cases against some of the judges involved with the more egregious rulings, such as a Washington judge who ordered the administration to turn airplanes deporting criminal illegals around in midair and return the terror suspects to the U.S. He even demanded from the White House national security details to which he was not authorized to access.
Even Trump has called for the impeachment of that judge, James Boasberg, who had established a reputation as a leftist activist for demanding harsher penalties than the law allowed for J6 protesters in Washington.
Johnson said he's not planning to destroy any court, but was reminding people of the authorities of Congress.
Article III of the Constitution assigns to Congress the authority to "ordain and establish" courts beneath the Supreme Court.
The House Judiciary Committee has a hearing next week to review the leftist rulings that encroach on the executive branch authorities.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An analysis of a ruling from Ana Reyes, a judge in Washington, that President Donald Trump's military must accept those with gender dysphoria, is taking her to task for singling out one political ideology – that could undermine America's national defense.
It is Charles "Cully" Stimson, of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, who wrote at the Daily Signal that there is a long list of physical and mental conditions that disqualify individuals from being in the military.
Gender dysphoria is just one.
The analysis notes Reyes has barred Trump from expelling "certain transgender servicemembers" from the military, in a legal case that already is on appeal.
"The U.S. military exists to defend the nation. As an all-volunteer force, the military relies on qualified men and women volunteering to serve in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Space Force. Enlisted men and women are typically high school graduates, young, meet or exceed certain physical and mental aptitude tests, and pass security background checks. Officers are college graduates and must pass the same or similar tests as enlisted personnel," he explained.
"Not everyone is cut out to serve in the military. Far from it. Some don't want to serve. Others want to serve but are not eligible because they are overweight, have asthma, musculoskeletal issues, vision or hearing impairments, dental issues, allergies, skin conditions, psychiatric disorders, eating disorders, learning disabilities, or one or more of hundreds of other disqualifying physical or mental conditions. Others are eligible to serve but don't pass the minimum physical or mental tests," he said.
Significantly, the military cannot afford to hire those who have disqualifying medical, emotional or psychological conditions.
"That lawful discrimination is rationally related to a legitimate, indeed compelling, government interest. Our military must only hire men and women who are ready, willing and able, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, to deploy anywhere in the world at a moment's notice and who have the physical, mental, emotional, and psychological stability and toughness to fight and win," he explained.
In fact, such deployability requirements have a list of "30 broad categories" that can disqualify personnel.
Among those listed under "Learning, Psychiatric, and Behavioral Disorders," disqualified are those with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, a history of learning disorders such as dyslexia, autism, schizophrenic disorders, delusional disorders, a history of being bipolar, depression, conduct "disorders," eating disorders, self-harm disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociative disorders and many more.
"The military lawfully discriminates against myriad people with mental health conditions. We do so not because we are callous, unfeeling, or don't wish the best for people (including family members and friends) with these conditions," he explained.
"The profession of arms is different from all other professions. The demands, operational tempo, physical and mental stressors, and lifestyle are distinct from all (except for a small handful of) civilian jobs. That requires the military to make sensible, reasoned choices about who can and who cannot be allowed to serve in the armed forces of the United States."
Trump's order specifically noted that longstanding policy is that military members are "free of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization."
He called for those with "gender dysphoria" to be moved out of the armed forces.
The analysis pointed that out Reyes "tips her hand" by using loaded language in her decision, calling people "marginalized persons.'
It explains Reyes falsely conflates "skin color, sex, and sexual orientation with people who suffer from a cognizable mental disorder, gender dysphoria," that that "infects" her opinion.
And her citation of the Constitution's reference to all being "equal" is a reach too far.
"When it comes to whether someone is physically, emotionally, or psychologically qualified to serve in the armed forces, everyone is not equal. True, everyone has equal value and dignity as a human being. But that's not the point. Equal value and dignity as a human being does not translate to equality of suitability to serve in the armed forces, a fact that Judge Reyes blatantly ignores."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed in a number of cases that the First Amendment protects even material that people find offensive.
Now a lower court judge in Colorado has expanded that ruling, further ordering that that requires a school district to provide offensive material to children.
Demanding that the Elizabeth School District use her judgment regarding materials board members and others determined should not be placed within ready access of children, Charlotte Sweeney, appointed by Joe Biden, "has sided with far-left activists over concerned parents, forcing the Elizabeth School District to return 19 books – including those pushing graphic sexual content and radical ideologies – to school library shelves," according to the Gateway Pundit.
The report described Sweeney as trampling on parental rights by forcing "explicit books" back into the library for any child to access.
Some of the publications include "The Hate U Give," "The Bluest Eye," "The Kite Runner," "#Pride: Championing LGBTQ Rights," "Melissa," "Thirteen Reasons Why" and more.
The board had removed the books from libraries because of concerns over "graphic violence, racism, and discrimination, depictions of self-harm or mental illness, and sexual content," the report said.
The NAACP joined the Authors Guild and some activist students and parents who claimed censorship and sued.
Sweeney found withholding offensive, possibly even dangerous or harmful, ideas from children violated the First Amendment.
She claimed, "Plaintiffs have shown that the district removed the 19 books based on the authors' and books' content and viewpoints on issues such as race, sexual orientation, gender identity, LGBTQ content, and to promote the board's self-proclaimed 'conservative values.'"
Sweeney claimed that the district's defense of a desire to protect children from inappropriate material was "pretextual."
Her decision was to deliver to those promoting the offending material, including the authors who stand to profit financially from her decision, a preliminary injunction ordering the school to provide the offending materials once again to children.
Sweeney claimed, "There simply is no reason to believe that the books were removed because of vulgarity, age-inappropriateness, or for legitimate pedagogical concerns."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two federal appeals courts handed down decisions Tuesday on Trump-related lawsuits, and they both were favorable decisions for the president who faces more than 120 lawsuits challenging various executive decisions in his administration's first 60 days.
The first is from the typically liberal-leaning 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel ruled there is no problem with Trump's executive order that put a stop to the federal government approving new refugees for entry into the U.S.
The suspension of new approvals had been challenged earlier, and Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead in Seattle had found that Trump could not nullify the law passed by Congress establishing the program, and it must be restarted, the AP reported.
The 9th Circuit panel reversed Whitehead's ruling, though it said refugee applications in the pipeline must continue.
The refugee program is meant to help people in other countries who claim their lives are endangered in their homeland migrate to America.
The other decision comes from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which temporarily paused a previous ruling claiming Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, acted unconstitutionally in attempting to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.
As reported, by the Washington Examiner, the court's administrative stay counters U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang's order, which required USAID to restore access to email and systems for employees placed on leave by DOGE. USAID has been one of the primary targets of Elon Musk's work to cut federal spending, waste and abuse.
Chuang is an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
A recently deceased prosecutor for the Biden administration was suffering from a medical condition before her unexpected death, according to a report.
Police found Jessica Aber inside an Alexandria, Virginia home on Saturday morning. She was the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from October 2021 until January of this year, when Biden left the White House.
Her death remains shrouded in mystery, with police offering few details to the public in the investigation's early stages.
A friend close to the family of Aber, 43, said she had a chronic medical condition.
"Police believe the death was the result of a longstanding medical issue," the source told Fox News.
The person who called police to the home refused to perform CPR on a 46-year-old woman, according to a dispatch reported by 7News. Aber was 43.
"Any additional units... for the cardiac arrest. 916 Beverly Drive," the dispatcher said. "That’ll be for a 46-year-old female found in bed unresponsive not breathing. The caller has refused CPR."
The death of a powerful prosecutor who worked close to Washington D.C. has led to some ominous speculation.
Aber's role in prosecuting foreign nationals, including MS-13 gang members and Russians accused of war crimes, has only fueled the intrigue.
While the investigation into the cause of death is ongoing, sources told ABC News that no foul play is suspected at this time.
Aber began her Justice Department career in 2009 as an assistant U.S. attorney in the office she would later lead. She started out prosecuting financial fraud, public corruption, violent crime and child exploitation cases, according to an online biography.
She was nominated to be the U.S. Attorney by President Biden and unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2021. Aber resigned in January when President Trump took the oath of office.
"I am deeply grateful to senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine and to President Biden for the opportunity to lead this office and to Attorney General Garland for his steadfast leadership," the attorney wrote at the time. "I am proud of the work we have done with our federal, state and local law enforcement partners to enforce the law and build community trust."
Her death led to an outpouring of tributes from fellow prosecutors, including her successor, Erik Siebert.
"Her professionalism, grace, and legal acumen set the standard. Though we are devastated by this loss, each of us in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) will look to her example and endeavor to live up to that standard," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – The nation's top cop says the highest court in America will "get involved" in the cases of "out-of-control" federal judges who are working to thwart the agenda of President Donald Trump.
Appearing on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said concerning U.S. District Judge James Boasberg halting deportation flights of violent criminals, "The Supreme Court will get involved."
"This is an out-of-control judge, a federal judge trying to control our entire foreign policy and he cannot do it."
"He is trying to ask us about national security information, which he is absolutely not entitled to, We are appealing. We will be in court on Monday again. We will win. We will prevail.
"There are 261 reasons why Americans are safer today and that's because those people are in an El Salvador prison."
"They're not immigrants. They're illegal aliens who are committing the most violent crimes you can imagine on Americans. Murder, rapes.
"Ask the parents of all of these young women who have been violently strangled, raped and murdered. And we are going to continue to make America safe again because that's President Trump's agenda."
"These judges are out of control. We are going to fight back but we are going to win," she added. "The Supreme Court will be ready to hear these cases."
When asked about Trump's use of a 1798 law to deport the criminals, Bondi explained: "The Alien Enemies Act applies today really more than ever. Really, old law is often the best law if you think about the laws that have bene on the books for a very long time.
"We are in modern-day warfare. They have invaded our country, TDA, Tren de Aragua. They are organized. They have a command structure. They are sending money to each other throughout the country and out of the country back to support their terrorist actions."
Regarding sanctuary cities in the U.S., Bondi said: "We're going to pull their funding we're going to continue to sue them."
"I truly cannot comprehend how these states, these governors, want to protect these criminals over the rights of their own citizens."
Concerning the recent spate of attacks against Tesla dealerships and Tesla owners due to opposition to Elon Musk, Bondi said, "This is domestic terrorism."
"We are looking at all of these cases across the country, we have a dedicated task force."
Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Jessica Aber was found dead in her home at age 43 on Saturday, according to the Alexandria Police Department.
APD Statement regarding Beverley Drive Death Investigation pic.twitter.com/86iNsUzQyO
— Alexandria Police (@AlexandriaVAPD) March 22, 2025
Officers responded to Aber's location at 9:18 a.m. after reports of an unresponsive woman and found Aber's deceased body, the statement said.
They are investigating the death according to their usual protocols for these situations.
"The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of Virginia will determine the cause and manner of death," the statement concluded.
Aber was appointed by former President Joe Biden to the position in 2021 and confirmed unanimously by the Senate.
She served in the position until her resignation in 2025 to allow President Donald Trump to appoint a successor.
While in the position, she proescuted MS-13 gang members and Russians accused of war crimes against Ukraine.
According to a source close to Aber, however, she had a long-term chronic health condition and police do not think the death is suspicious at this time.
The current U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik S. Siebert, said Aber was “unmatched as a leader, mentor, and prosecutor, and she is simply irreplaceable as a human being.”
“We remain in awe of how much she accomplished in her all too brief time in this world. Her professionalism, grace, and legal acumen set the standard. Though we are devastated by this loss, each of us in the Eastern District of Virginia will look to her example and endeavor to live up to that standard,” he added.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi also expressed sorrow over Aber's death.
“The loss of Jessica Aber, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, is deeply tragic,” she wrote.
“Our hearts and prayers go out to her family and friends during this profoundly difficult time,” she added.
In a move that has sparked widespread debate, President Trump has launched a pointed critique against federal judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against his administration's policies.
The administration contends these judicial actions represent an unwelcome intervention into executive powers and seeks the Supreme Court's intervention to prevent what it deems as judicial overreach.
Since stepping into the Oval Office, President Trump has been openly critical of federal judges who have opposed his policy measures, labeling them as partisan and overstepping their judicial boundaries. He has taken to Truth Social to air his grievances, accusing what he terms "radical left judges" of attempting to seize presidential authority without contesting an electoral process.
Through a series of posts last Thursday and Friday, President Trump was vocal about his disdain for nationwide injunctions. He declared that these judges are attempting to take on roles reserved for the presidency, a position that requires democratic endorsement. Trump urged the Supreme Court to put an end to these practices by stating that immediate action is required to avoid serious national consequences.
He emphasized the alleged urgency by posting, “STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,” and further suggested that these judicial interventions are bringing the nation into "serious trouble."
This call to action has seen backing from members of the Trump administration, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt expressing a similar sentiment. She reiterated the claim that judges are maneuvering to impose their own policies over those of the presidential administration, effectively hindering the progress of Trump's agenda, which she labeled as "unacceptable."
Despite such remarks, Trump has encountered a frequency of nationwide injunctions during his first term that surpasses those faced by recent predecessors, amassing 64 such instances. This further stokes the perception among Trump and his supporters of a coordinated judicial effort to thwart his objectives.
In conjunction with sparking discussions around judicial intervention, Trump has floated the controversial proposal of impeaching judges who rule against his policies. This idea has gained traction within certain circles, also embracing support from tech mogul Elon Musk. However, the proposal has met with resistance, including from within the judiciary itself.
Chief Justice John Roberts made clear his stance on the issue, expressing that impeachment should not be seen as a viable remedy for differences in judicial interpretation. He emphasized this point by highlighting the importance of maintaining judicial independence, which is not to be undermined by executive disagreements over decisions.
Meanwhile, the focus also rests on the ongoing deliberations within the Supreme Court over a case involving Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. As the nation anticipates a resolution, the attention continues to underscore the tensions between Trump's administration and the federal judiciary.
While no immediate resolution appears imminent, the legal and political communities are closely watching as these actions could set a significant precedent for the balance of powers. The interplay between judicial scrutiny and executive authority has become a focal point of discussion during the latter part of Trump’s presidency.
Public reactions to Trump's criticisms have been varied, sparking both support and opposition across the political spectrum. Those aligned with Trump praise his unwavering stance against what they perceive as overreach, while critics argue the approach undermines institutional checks and balances.
The discussion highlights a deeper narrative about the limits of judicial authority in American democracy, a conversation that transcends political affiliations and questions the foundational principles upon which the nation was built.
Ultimately, this chapter in President Trump's administration underscores a historic tension between two branches of government. As the Supreme Court weighs its pending judgment, the nation watches closely, aware of the ramifications these decisions hold for the future of American governance.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio's sweeping cuts to USAID programs have ignited political rifts and prompted legal actions questioning their impact on global aid efforts and crucial lifesaving services.
Secretary Rubio's USAID cuts, supported by a significant internal list, have ignited a firestorm of legal and political actions and posed challenges that threaten ongoing global humanitarian efforts, The Hill reported.
A comprehensive internal list, approximately 400 pages long, has come to light, offering Congress a detailed view of the recently executed reductions executed by Secretary of State Rubio within USAID.
The document, which reached Congress thanks to a whistleblower, highlights how Rubio's cuts aim at terminating numerous vital services that have been considered essential to prevent and treat diseases like HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. The cuts contradict commitments previously made by the Trump administration to maintain certain foreign assistance programs.
The breadth of Rubio's decisions includes dismissing significant administrative resources alongside developmental efforts, such as programs that provide cybersecurity assistance and aid to victims of violence. Notably, a program with a $1.2 million budget focused on helping victims of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo was unexpectedly discontinued.
There have been several legal challenges to these deep cuts. In certain instances, courts have intervened, pushing back and mandating a recommencement of some vital programs' funding. Among lawmakers, discord is rife, with accusations that Minister Rubio's office, rather than focusing on reforming the agency for better efficiency, seems set on an agenda for dismantling USAID entirely.
Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Chris Van Hollen have voiced concerns, highlighting the health risks associated with these decisions. Senator Shaheen contends that the administration's approach endangers Americans by increasing susceptibility to infectious diseases. Meanwhile, Van Hollen accuses the administration of an intent to undermine USAID, as observable in the disassembly of crucial support mechanisms.
Despite this, not all politicians are in agreement. Senator John Curtis, a Republican, acknowledges the challenges in adopting a more compassionate approach, stating that the nation sought a disruptor when electing President Trump, implying that adjustment was not only expected but needed. Others, including Rep. Brian Mast, argue this level of scrutiny exposes significant inefficiencies and accountability gaps within current USAID and State Department operations.
The United States accounted for 41 percent of global humanitarian relief funding in 2024. Consequently, the ramifications of cutting 83 percent of USAID, resulting in the discontinuation of 5,800 USAID and 4,100 State Department programs, reverberate far beyond U.S. borders. This substantial reduction paints a worrisome picture for international efforts combating epidemics and supporting marginalized communities.
Confusion and concern resonate amongst aid organizations due to the inconsistent nature of program termination and reactivation. For example, Janti Soeripto, involved in one of the affected programs, reinforces the importance of maintaining lifesaving operations amidst such proposed cuts. Unfortunately, uncertainty regarding roles and decisions within USAID complicates the landscape of foreign aid.
Rachel Moynihan adds to the criticism by highlighting the arbitrary nature of program terminations, noting failures in communication within the agency. In parallel, Sarah Craven remarks on the rescissions of terminations, albeit without clear lines of communication, voicing hope that life-impacting programs will be prioritized for preservation.
USAID insiders warn of rising risks from infectious diseases such as Ebola and malaria if critical lifesaving initiatives fail to continue. Compounding this, Peter Marocco, linked to the reductions, draws focus, highlighting concerns of systemic inefficiencies. This narrative suggests a critical inspection of foreign aid structures both internally and externally.
As the controversy unfolds, the emphasis remains on the complex dialogue between reforming agency practices and sustaining vital humanitarian support. Policymakers, aid organizations, and international allies continue to grapple with ensuring U.S. foreign aid aligns with strategic priorities without sacrificing these key support systems.
The broader implications of these moves by Minister Rubio on U.S. humanitarian leadership positions question the future direction of foreign assistance. Significant efforts toward understanding the broader impact on both domestic and global scales are urgently needed as stakeholders seek paths forward amidst turbulent times.