In a surprising turn of events, The Daily Beast has issued a public apology to first lady Melania Trump and retracted a controversial article linking her to a modeling agent associated with the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, Fox News reported.
This development follows the outlet's admission that the story, based on claims by journalist Michael Wolff, failed to meet its editorial standards, prompting both the removal of the article and related podcast content after legal pressure from Trump's team.
The saga began when The Daily Beast published an article alleging that Melania Trump was introduced to Donald Trump through a modeling agent connected to Jeffrey Epstein, a disgraced financier who died in 2019.
The story drew from an interview with Michael Wolff, conducted by Joanna Coles for The Daily Beast Podcast, where Wolff discussed alleged ties between the Trumps and Epstein.
Wolff claimed during the interview that Melania was deeply involved in a relationship with Epstein through the modeling world, though he later distanced himself from the published piece.
In July, after the article's release, Melania Trump's legal team sent a letter disputing the headline and overall narrative presented in the story.
Responding to the legal threat, The Daily Beast initially pulled the article from its platforms in July, signaling early concerns about its content.
On a subsequent Monday, the outlet issued a formal apology to Melania Trump, which she then shared on the social media platform X.
In its statement, The Daily Beast acknowledged, "The Daily Beast recently published a story headlined 'Melania Trump ‘Very Involved’ in Epstein Scandal: Author’ based on an interview with Michael Wolff."
Continuing its apology, the outlet added, "Upon reflection, we have determined that the article did not meet our standards and has therefore been removed from our platforms."
Additionally, The Daily Beast removed a segment of a podcast episode titled "Trump’s Epstein Scandal Can’t Stop Won’t Stop," which also referenced the first lady, as noted in their response to her attorneys.
The apology further highlighted that Melania Trump considers her bestselling book, "Melania," to be the definitive account of her personal story, a point included in the outlet's statement.
Michael Wolff, the journalist at the center of the claims, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the retracted allegations.
Back in July, Wolff told Fox News Digital that he had no involvement in the writing of the article itself, despite his interview being the basis for its content.
Wolff’s reporting style has faced scrutiny in the past, with his credibility questioned within the journalism community, including over past works like his 2018 book "Fire and Fury," where multiple individuals in Donald Trump’s circle denied quotes attributed to them, and an insinuation about then-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who called it "disgusting" and "highly offensive," sparked significant controversy.
President Trump is suing the New York Times for defamation, demanding $15 billion in damages over the "degenerate" newspaper's reporting on his life and political career.
The lawsuit names the paper and Peter Baker, Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig, and Michael Schmidt as defendants, as well as Penguin Random House, the publisher of Buettner and Craig's book Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.
"Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Dollar Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times, one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual 'mouthpiece' for the Radical Left Democrat Party," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The lawsuit is just Trump's latest strike against the left-wing legacy media, after he previously settled eight-figure lawsuits with CBS News and ABC.
The New York Times dismissed Trump's lawsuit as a meritless intimidation tactic.
Trump accuses the New York Times of trying to maliciously damage his reputation and weaken his chances of victory in the 2024 presidential election.
The lawsuit cites three articles and Lucky Loser, which were all published "at the height of election season to inflict maximum electoral damage against President Trump."
According to the lawsuit, the Times and its reporters falsely credited the producers of The Apprentice with making Trump a star and propelling him to the White House.
"Thanks solely to President Trump’s sui generis charisma and unique business acumen, 'The Apprentice' generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and remained on television for over thirteen years, with nearly 200 episodes. ‘The Apprentice’ represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump’s singular brilliance, which captured the zeitgeist of our time," the lawsuit states.
Trump's lawsuit says the Times and its reporters "baselessly hate President Trump in a deranged way," also pointing to the newspaper's blistering attack on Trump in its front-page endorsement of Kamala Harris last fall.
The Times has long been a leading enemy of Trump and an influential source of left-wing disinformation. One of the defendants in Trump's lawsuit, Michael Schmidt, won a Pulitzer Prize for a 2017 article that triggered Robert Mueller's baseless "Russian collusion" probe. Schmidt's article was based on leaked memos from former FBI director James Comey, who admitted to leaking the memos to trigger an investigation into Trump.
Trump's lawsuit against the Times cites an October 2024 article from Schmidt that painted Trump as an aspiring dictator.
Inflammatory rhetoric against the right is being called out after the brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk by a radical leftist who hates "fascists."
One of the defendants in Trump's lawsuit against the Times, chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, suggested that Kirk somehow provoked his attacker by getting people "riled up" with his words.
The New York Times’ Peter Baker says Charlie Kirk intentionally tried to get people “riled up” over issues “about race, about gender, about affirmative action and Islam”
He says that Kirk being assassinated turned him into “a symbol of the of the toxic culture that we’re in” pic.twitter.com/JjIpq5oAne
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) September 14, 2025
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Fani Willis, the Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor who created an organized crime case against President Donald Trump and a long list of other defendants as part of the Democrats' lawfare against him, has suffered the ultimate in rejection.
After a lower court threw her off the case because of conflicts – for one thing she hired her paramour with tax money to assemble her allegations against Trump – the state Supreme Court now has refused to reconsider, making her ejection of the now likely-dead case against Trump permanent.
For the case to continue, another prosecutor would have to be assigned the case, and begin assembling claims about evidence from the start.
According to Law & Crime, it was a "supreme loss" for Willis, a Democrat who played a large part in her party's lawfare against Trump.
It was the Georgia Court of Appeals that ruled earlier, 2-1, that Judge Scott McAfee was mistaken when he allowed Willis and her handpicked special prosecutor Nathan Wade, with whom she had a romantic relationship, an ultimatum that one or the other had to go due to a "significant appearance of impropriety," the report said.
McAfee erred by failing to disqualify Willis and her office, that ruling said.
That was because of her "significant appearance of impropriety."
The high court said, "In the Court of Appeals, the defendants here appealed the trial court's disqualification order, which (1) found that the conduct of the district attorney and special prosecutor created a 'significant appearance of impropriety,' and (2) as a remedy, determined that one of those two prosecutors would have to withdraw from the case. In doing so, the defendants did not contest the appearance-of-impropriety finding, but they contended that the trial court's 'one of you has to go' version of disqualification was error, and that it should have instead simply disqualified the district attorney. And critically, the State did not cross-appeal the trial court's ruling."
The court said that ultimately may have to be reviewed in another case, as right now, "the legal basis for a rule that prosecutors may be subject to disqualification based only on conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety is not clear."
The ruling ends Willis' scheme to remain on the high-profile RICO case and transfers prosecutorial responsibility to a new attorney.
Trump's lawyer, Steve Sadow said, "The Georgia Supreme Court has correctly denied review of the Georgia Court of Appeals decision disqualifying DA Fani Willis and her office as prosecutors in the Fulton County RICO case. Willis's misconduct during the investigation and prosecution of President Trump was egregious and she deserved nothing less than disqualification. This proper decision should bring an end to the wrongful political, lawfare persecutions of the President."
Even now, investigations continue into whether, and how much, Willis schemed with special counsel Jack Smith, who was handling other Democrat lawfare cases against Trump, and ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan January 6 commission, which actually assembled select pieces of evidence to claim Trump was responsible for those events.
A recent federal appeals court ruling has impacted Planned Parenthood's funding, setting a precedent in the ongoing legal tug-of-war over Medicaid and abortion support, Breitbart report.
In a significant legal development, a federal appeals court blocked a lower court's mandate for taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood, suspending Medicaid contributions as judicial proceedings continue.
The controversy began with a legislative action embedded in this summer's "Big, Beautiful Bill," which specifically eliminated Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding for one year. This move prompted Planned Parenthood to challenge the measure in court, claiming it was unconstitutional and unfairly targeted the organization.
In response to the filed lawsuit, Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, granted preliminary injunctions on July 21 and July 28, 2025, aimed at preventing the enforcement of the congressional measure. Judge Talwani expressed concerns about potential severe health impacts, including increases in unintended pregnancies and untreated STIs due to reduced access to healthcare services.
The Department of Health and Human Services, however, argued against Planned Parenthood's stance, asserting in legal filings that the organization does not possess an inherent right to federal funding. This position marks a clear governmental shift under the current administration's policies concerning healthcare funding and abortion services.
On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, staffed by judges appointed by former President Joe Biden, overturned Talwani’s injunctions. The appellate decision underscored the government's discretion over fund allocation and refocused attention on the ongoing debate around Planned Parenthood’s role in public health.
The three-judge panel of the appeals court articulated its stance, noting the defendants had demonstrated sufficient grounds to stay the preliminary injunctions during the appeals process. This decision effectively pauses the lower court's orders, maintaining the status quo as the legal battle unfolds.
Judge Talwani, in her rulings, had highlighted a likely violation of the U.S. Constitution by the specific exclusion of Planned Parenthood from Medicaid reimbursements. Her opinion pointed to substantial evidence supporting Planned Parenthood's claims of potentially succeeding in their constitutional challenge against the congressional action.
Despite these concerns, the appeals decision represents a broader trend where state and federal levels are increasingly contesting the parameters of funding to health organizations that include abortion services within their offerings.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, lauded the appeals court’s decision. She framed it as a victory for taxpayer interests and ethical healthcare, emphasizing the broader availability of comprehensive health services beyond Planned Parenthood’s network.
Planned Parenthood's recent annual report shows its critical role in health services, with 402,230 abortions performed and $792.2 million received in taxpayer funding for 2023-2024. These figures represent a significant component of the healthcare services accessed by millions across the U.S., underscoring the potential implications of funding cuts.
The broader legal context includes a June Supreme Court decision allowing South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds, signaling a potential shift in how states can regulate funding for abortion providers under Medicaid.
The appellate court's decision not only underscores the shifting judicial perspectives but also sets the stage for further legal challenges in federal courts across the nation. As the legal proceedings evolve, Planned Parenthood faces an uncertain fiscal future, potentially affecting millions who rely on its services for healthcare beyond abortion, like cancer screenings and sexual health education.
The ongoing legal contention over Planned Parenthood’s funding through Medicaid highlights the complex interplay between law, politics, and public health in America. Stakeholders from various sectors are closely watching the outcomes, as they will likely influence public health policies and funding frameworks for years to come.
With multiple legal and public health dimensions at play, this case exemplifies the multifaceted nature of healthcare funding in the United States, bridging issues of constitutional rights, public health policy, and the role of government in personal wellness decisions.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Letitia James, the far-left attorney general in New York who campaigned for office on a promise to "get" President Donald Trump when there were no allegations available, now is in legal jeopardy again.
It's because of the height of a fence at a five-unit apartment structure she owns in Brooklyn.
It's the same address that triggered a federal mortgage fraud investigation into her, as she obtained an interest rate on a mortgage for the property that was based on it having four units, when it actually has five, according to building records.
The Washington Examiner said James could face $500 in fines because the fence at the brownstone is five feet, five inches tall, beyond the 48-inch limit.
The New York Department of Buildings served James with a violation notice recently that deemed her front fence exceeded height limitations.
It was James who, after campaigning to "get" Trump, came up with a claim that his business operations committed fraud. She worked with a judge, Arthur Engoron, on the case, which alleged that there was fraud even though the business entities that supposedly were victimized said their loans were repaid on time and in full, and they would like to do more business with Trump.
Despite the lack of evidence, the judge created a penalty for Trump and his businesses of almost half a billion dollars, a decision that subsequently was tossed by an appeals court ruling that said it violated the U.S. Constitution.
In James' latest legal woes, she'll face a hearing in October, and if found guilty could be ordered to pay $500 in fines. Alternatively, the problem could be "cured" by the time the hearing is held, when the case could be then dropped.
Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte referred James to the DOJ for alleged mortgage fraud over her Brooklyn and Norfolk properties in April, alleging that James consistently listed her Brooklyn residence as a four-bedroom home instead of a five-bedroom home.
James is accused of fraud for misrepresenting her residences in order to obtain preferential mortgage loan treatments, including once when she allegedly characterized her father as a "spouse" and represented a five-apartment building she owns as having four apartments because that would give her a better interest rate.
In a column at the Gateway Pundit, author Joel Gilbert explained that James needs to be held accountable, "for the integrity of public office, for victims of any wrongdoing, and for public trust."
He noted James herself "agrees."
"After Donald Trump's fraud conviction, on February 16, 2024, James released a statement: 'When powerful people cheat to get better loans, it comes at the expense of honest and hardworking people.'"
The column explained that in 2011 James "obtained a US government HAMP loan by falsely claiming her apartment building had just 4 units. The HAMP loan was eligible only to owners with four or less apartment units. Letitia James likely also falsely claimed a financial hardship to qualify for the loan, as she was earning around $14,000 per month. With the HAMP loan, James was able to replace her 10% adjustable bank mortgage with a 2.7% government loan on the backs of American taxpayers.:"
He noted, "More recently, in 2021, James secured a $200,000 'Credit Line Mortgage' with Citizens Bank by describing the same five-family commercial building as a 'single-family dwelling.' The result: she paid just $4,070 in closing costs instead of $20,000-$30,000 that a commercial borrower would have faced, and got lower interest rates."
James' case against Trump was one of a multitude of lawfare cases assembled by Democrats that apparently were intended to demolish him financially and destroy his chances to run for president again in 2024, which he ultimately did.
Most of the cases now have evaporated.
The political world in Brazil just took an interesting turn in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that resulted in the country's former president being sentenced to decades behind bars.
According to The Seattle Times, "A panel of Brazilian Supreme Court justices sentenced former president Jair Bolsonaro to 27 years"... in prison after deciding that he was part of an effort to stay in power after his failed 2022 election.
Bolsonaro, described as a far-right politician, was hit with a total of five charges regarding the alleged coup attempt, and has been on house arrest for some time.
The former Brazilian president has steadily denied any wrongdoing on his part.
Four of the five Brazilian Supreme Court justices reviewing the case ruled that Bolsonaro was guilty of the five counts. The ruling is expected to generate pushback from the U.S. government.
The outlet reported:
Four of the five justices reviewing the case in the panel found the far-right politician guilty on five counts, in a ruling that will deepen political divisions and was expected to prompt a backlash from the U.S. government. It makes Bolsonaro is the first former Brazilian president to be convicted of attempting a coup.
The outlet also listed the five counts Bolsonary was charged with.
They included "attempting a coup after losing the 2022 race to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a plot that prosecutors alleged included plans to kill Lula; participating in an armed criminal organization; attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law; damage qualified by violence; and deterioration of listed heritage."
Jair Bolsonaro, former Brazilian president, has been sentenced to 27 years in prison.
They want us jailed or killed. Never give up. pic.twitter.com/ZvFWflNJ6R
— 𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐔𝐍𝐄𝐒 (@Antunes1) September 11, 2025
Those working with Bolsonaro were also sentenced for their roles, with many of them receiving lengthy sentences as well.
The Supreme Court's sentencing drew mixed reactions across social media, with some celebrating the news while others claiming it was all under the cloud of corruption all around.
"He was a corrupt politician," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "He had a chance to seize power and he didn't and they locked him up anyway. Dude got cold feet."
Bolsonaro can appeal the ruling, according to the outlet, but it's unclear if and when he plans to do so.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It seems there may have been an active agenda under the Joe Biden administration to accelerate prosecutions over the Jan. 6, 2021, protest-turned-riot at the Capitol after President Donald Trump was elected in 2024 and it was clear Biden soon would be out of power.
It was under the Biden administration that judges uniformly held people suspected of offenses like trespassing for months, even years, in prison.
The cases were brought up as if there were serious charges like treason or insurrection involved, when there weren't.
Sentencing by the judiciary in the leftist enclave of Washington was harsh, and judges routinely refused permission for cases to be moved to other jurisdictions because of the obvious bias that existed.
Now it appears there may have even been a concerted campaign by the Biden administration to hurry up prosecutions and sentencings after Trump was elected last November, and it was clear Biden soon would be out of power and Trump even would have a free hand to pardon those J6ers, which he eventually did.
It is Judicial Watch, a government watchdog organization, that has confirmed it has filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records on accelerated Jan. 6 prosecutions.
Those happened after Trump's election last November.
"The Biden administration, anticipating President-elect Donald Trump's promise to issue pardons for January 6, 2021, defendants, is believed to have accelerated prosecutions in the final months of Biden's term," Judicial Watch reported.
Its case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia came after the Justice Department failed to respond to a November 2024 FOIA request for the records of then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, then-Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco, then-Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, and then-Special Counsel Jack Smith "regarding a) pardons of any person(s) incarcerated due convictions in federal court in the District of Columbia related to crimes committed at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C, on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021 b) directives or orders to focus on arresting additional suspects by type of offense allegedly committed. The timeframe of the request is from January – November 2024," Judicial Watch reported.
"On January 6, 2025, the Justice Department reportedly considered charging up to 200 additional people for their alleged involvement at the U.S. Capitol disturbance. About 1,583 people already had been facing federal charges. On January 17, 2025, it was reported that the FBI and federal prosecutors continued to make arrests and 'pursue hefty sentences for those who breached the U.S. Capitol grounds.' Authorities made four arrests just days before Trump's inauguration," the watchdog confirmed.
"The corrupt Biden Justice Department tried to undermine the Trump administration by maliciously prosecuting American citizens tied to January 6. Judicial Watch's lawsuit aims to get to the truth about this last-minute abuse of power," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
The organization previously has sued over "lawfare" targeting Trump and his supporters several times.
One fight it handled was for the benefit of the family of Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed Air Force veteran shot at point blank range and killed during that Jan. 6, disturbance. The government reached a $5 million settlement with her family and granted her military honors.
Another case involved the lawfare against Trump, a created organized crime allegation, brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who later was ordered off the case because of her conflict in that she hired a paramour to do investigative work for her.
Judicial Watch also has been investigating how much Willis, Smith and others doing lawfare for the Democrats coordinated with Nancy Pelosi's partisan commission investigating J6.
It also has sued over IRS records suggesting targeting of Capitol protesters and their supporters, two conference calls involving Biden officials about the election certification that year, and a meeting in which Biden officials pressured each other to target "far right" Americans.
A federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump's plan to deport 430,000 illegal immigrants, Newsweek reported. The Trump administration targeted a Biden-era policy that allowed people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to live in the U.S. for up to two years without a work permit.
The case was heard before a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, based in Boston. The Trump administration initially sought to end the so-called humanitarian parole protections that were a holdover from his predecessor as part of his plan to combat illegal immigration.
The program gave migrants who suffered natural disasters or other hardships the right to stay despite no other legal claim. The court acknowledged the "risks of irreparable harm persuasively laid out in the district court's order: that parolees who lawfully arrived in this country were suddenly forced to choose between leaving in less than a month — a choice that potentially includes being separated from their families, communities, and lawful employment and returning to dangers in their home countries," the judges wrote.
"But absent a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of such irreparable harms cannot, by itself, support a stay," they added. The plaintiff's attorneys stated that the lower court, which initiated the block, "applied the law correctly and did not abuse its discretion."
The people in favor of allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to stay made the usual dire predictions about closing the loophole, the Associated Press reported. "People who came here from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela did everything the government asked of them, and the Trump administration cruelly and nonsensically failed to hold up the government’s end of the bargain," Esther Sung, an attorney in the case and the legal director of Justice Action Center, claimed.
Sung said the deportation would hurt "everyone" if it were allowed to stand. "While we are deeply disappointed by this decision, we will continue to advocate zealously for our clients and class members as the litigation continues."
A lower court had blocked the blanket deportations in April, but the Supreme Court intervened in May and lifted the stay without further explanation. The Trump administration attorneys urged the appeals court to adhere to the Supreme Court's decision in overturning the district court's decision.
While there is panic over this decision, humanitarian parole allowances have always been at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security and could be revoked at will. The district court ruled that the cases should be handled individually by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer further argued that it presents a "gargantuan task" for the government to process the removals individually. "The Secretary’s discretionary rescission of a discretionary benefit should have been the end of the matter," the attorneys claimed in the legal filing.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to conduct mass deportations. While this sent the left on a tear against him, voters seemed to like the idea and cast their ballots for him, knowing he would do just that, and have supported him even as the left has opposed Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.
"We're moving murderers out of our country that were put here by Biden-- We're gonna get them out-- I can inform the rest of the country that if they do it [riot], they will be met with equal or greater force," Trump told the press in June. The clip was shared at the time to Libs of TikTok on X, formerly Twitter.
President Trump on future ICE raids and violent riots:
"We're moving murderers out of our country that were put here by Biden-- We're gonna get them out-- I can inform the rest of the country that if they do it [riot], they will be met with equal or greater force." 🔥 pic.twitter.com/3yCtCQHpMY
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 10, 2025
The most recent raid came at a Hyundai plant in Georgia this week, which was one that then-President Joe Biden had claimed was an indication of America's manufacturing rebound, Fox News reported. "It’s great to be here to announce the more than $10 billion in new investment in American manufacturing," Biden said in May 2022 from a plant in Korea. The raid found that at least 475 of those jobs went to illegal immigrants, mainly from South Korea.
Democrats let illegal immigration spiral out of control, but Trump is doing the will of the people by reining it in. He is attacking the issue from several angles, whether it's eliminating humanitarian parole or raiding places where they're employed. This is precisely what the majority of Americans voted for.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Judges on a federal appeals court have ordered that the federal government can stop sending taxpayers' cash to the abortion giant Planned Parenthood … for now.
The ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals lifted two injunctions from a lower court activist judge, Indira Talwani, regarding parts of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
That legislation, adopted by Congress and signed by the president, stopped funding for the abortion industry behemoth.
But Planned Parenthood sued, claiming it violates the Constitution for its operations not to be given taxpayer cash.
"We are pleased the 1st Circuit has shut down Big Abortion's desperate money grab," said SBA Pro-Life American chief Marjorie Dannenfelser.
"The American people, through Congress, spoke clearly with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Taxpayers should not be forced to spend a dime funding a brutal industry that ends at least 1.1 million lives a year, harms women while providing dwindling, substandard health care services, and engages in partisan political activism – especially when more accessible, more comprehensive options outnumber Planned Parenthoods 15 to 1. We are confident the Trump administration will prevail against the abortion industry's lawfare."
Talwani's fight to force taxpayers to pay Planned Parenthood millions of dollars a year involved several levels.
She "preliminarily enjoined" the Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary, along with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the administrator — from "enforcing, retroactively enforcing, or otherwise applying" the federal law.
She also demanded that the government "take all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed in the customary manner and time frames to Planned Parenthood…"
Those orders now have been suspended.
Talwani had gone even further in her pro-abortion campaign, demanding in a second ruling that funding for a specific Utah abortion business be funded.
"We conclude that defendants have met their burden to show their entitlement to a stay of the preliminary injunctions pending the disposition of their appeals of the same," the ruling said.
The appeals court ruling was a unanimous 3-0.
Talwani had argued for the abortionists' funding, claiming Planned Parenthood was targeted by a "bill of attainder," a law that declares a specifical person or group guilty.
She claimed Planned Parenthood was being singled out and unjustly punished and wildly suggested following a law adopted by Congress and signed by the president was a violation of the First Amendment.
The DHHS said, "Rarely if ever has an Act of Congress been enjoined on such flimsy grounds. The district court deemed the Medicaid funding restriction a bill of attainder. But the Supreme Court has only invalidated laws under the Bill of Attainder Clause five times in its history—on each occasion in cases involving extraordinary laws punishing groups such as Confederates and Communist Party members."
In fact, the government informed the appeals court it actually was Talwani whose acts were interfering with the authority held by Congress over federal spending and the president's responsibility to enforce the law.
Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said, "We are thankful that Judge Talwani's shallow attempt to protect an organization that cares nothing for the American people, kills babies, and has defrauded Medicaid was uncovered and undone. Planned Parenthood is quickly running out of friends in high and dark places, and we praise God for it. Over 40 Planned Parenthoods have already closed – we expect that number to grow over the coming weeks, and we'll celebrate every one. Planned Parenthood never deserved one American dollar of taxpayer funds, and when abortion clinics close, babies are saved."
The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a preliminary injunction that had been placed on a provision revoking Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood, Newsmax reported. The rule was part of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act that was signed into law in July.
The Boston-based federal appeals court ruled on Thursday in favor of the administration's petition to halt the injunction imposed by a lower court. Pro-life groups, including Live Action, cheered the decision to allow the provision to stand to turn off the federal money spigot for the abortion giant.
"BREAKING: Planned Parenthood has been DEFUNDED—again. The First Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the injunction that has been preventing HHS from cutting Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Taxpayer dollars should never bankroll the nation’s largest abortion chain," Live Action, a pro-life nonprofit, posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday.
BREAKING
Planned Parenthood has been DEFUNDED—again.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the injunction that has been preventing HHS from cutting Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood.
Taxpayer dollars should never bankroll the nation’s largest abortion chain. pic.twitter.com/EQjCtNoPjO
— Live Action (@LiveAction) September 11, 2025
Whenever Republicans seek to pull funding for the slaughter of the unborn, Planned Parenthood and its ilk constantly decry it as a move that will cause harm. This time was no different when the nation's largest abortion provider sued over the provision, claiming "catastrophic" consequences for its clinics, with as many as one-third of them across 24 states in danger of being closed.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani sided with Planned Parenthood on the basis that the funding ban violated the First Amendment rights of the abortion giant. The judge also said that the provision was out of bounds as it was acting as a "bill of attainder."
This means Talwani, an Obama-appointed judge, interpreted the law as a punitive measure imposed against the organization without due process and is thus rendered it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has only successfully invoked that clause five times to strike down legislation passed by Congress, but Talwani used it to dispute the ban anyway.
The Trump administration argued that this was erroneous before the three-judge panel at the appeals court and prevailed. "Halting federal subsidies bears no resemblance to the punishments - including death, banishment, and imprisonment - previously understood as implicating the Clause," the Department of Justice asserted.
Notably, the three judges who sided with the Trump administration were appointed by then-President Joe Biden. While the fight over this particular provision appears to be going Trump's way, there has been a persistent issue with courts attempting to thwart Trump's agenda by using lower courts to impose nationwide injunctions.
Trump has attempted to put through much of his promised agenda through executive orders and the legislative process. Since Democrats couldn't beat him in the arena of ideas during the election, they have instead resorted to finding friendly courts to challenge the Trump agenda, and they have been successful in many cases.
As Fox News reported, nationwide injunctions are issued by lower courts to prevent the federal court from proceeding with certain laws or actions. The news outlet noted that almost "all the universal injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's agenda were issued by just five of the nation's 94 federal district courts, a statistic that the administration said lays bare the Left's strategy of lawfare."
In June, the Trump administration took the issue all the way up to the Supreme Court. The high court ruled 6-3 in favor of the administration's argument and said that lower courts could not issue nationwide injunctions. The president and Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated that decision.
"Active liberal… judges have used these injunctions to block virtually all of President Trump's policies. No longer. No longer," Bondi said at the time. It now seems that the lawfare the left is launching simply isn't working anymore, even when it comes to the fight over abortion funding.
Trump notched another win for his agenda and the people who voted for him with this appeal. Abortion is a horrible practice that should be completely illegal, but stopping taxpayer dollars from funding abortion mills to snuff out the lives of the unborn is at least a good start.