Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have created a long list of establishment enemies, and in the process, generated mountains of legal actions against the organization.
According to The Hill, in a lawsuit that seeks documents and information about DOGE operations, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts temporarily paused discovery.
Roberts played ball with the Trump administration, which had requested a temporary administrative stay, "which temporarily lifts a judge’s order allowing limited discovery into whether DOGE is an 'agency.'"
The key issue is that if DOGE is found to be an official agency, then it, like every other agency, would be subject to complying with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Chief Justice Roberts received the request by default, as he handles emergency requests that come out of Washington D.C.
The Hill noted:
The pause will last until the court decides whether to wipe two lower court rulings letting discovery move forward, which Roberts could himself decide or refer to the full court.
Attorneys for the government, including Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that DOGE is not subject to complying with FOIA requests, instead describing the organization as a "presidential advisory body" housed within the Executive Office of the President.
Sauer went on to argue that he believes the judge allowed deep levels of discovery to determine whether or not DOGE is required to submit to FOIA requests.
The Hill added:
He suggested that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an appointee of former President Obama, ordered DOGE to submit to “sweeping, intrusive” discovery just to determine if it is, in fact, subject to FOIA, which lets the public request information from the government.
Sauder said, "That order turns FOIA on its head, effectively giving the respondent a win on the merits of its FOIA suit under the guise of figuring out whether FOIA even applies."
The high court intervened after a lower D.C. court ruled last week that the discovery process could continue.
The lawsuit was brought against DOGE by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
Dozens of other lawsuits have been filed with similar intentions.
Only time will tell where this particular lawsuit goes.
President Donald Trump and his administration continue to clean out the halls of Washington D.C. with a new round of dismissals, suspensions and reassignments.
According to Newsweek, the Trump administration made quite an overhaul at the National Security Council by dismissing dozens of workers, placing others on administrative leave, and issuing reassignments for some.
The shake-up at the White House's NSC came in the wake of the exit of Mike Waltz as the head of the agency in the wake of the Signal chat scandal that caused some level of embarrassment for the administration.
As it stands, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is the acting adviser of the NSC until a replacement can be confirmed by the Senate.
President Trump and his administration are undertaking a massive reorganization of the NSC, which will include firings, suspensions and recalling some of the employees back to their home stations, reports noted.
The overhaul has been described as a sort of "liquidation" of the agency.
Newsweek noted:
NSC Chief of Staff Brian McCormack informed members of the NSC that they had 30 minutes to remove their belongings and exit the building, which is located next to the White House.
Dennis Wilder, a former top NSC official in George W. Bush's administration, told the FT there was "no question that the NSC in the Biden administration had become bloated and was high-handedly trying to implement foreign policy rather than doing its traditional role of co-ordinating the implementation by the rest of the national security establishment."
A major part of the overhaul is that the Trump administration believes the NSC is riddled with those who aren't in line with Trump's agenda.
Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are apparently behind the massive changes, according to Fox News.
The outlet noted:
A White House official involved in the planning said Trump and Rubio are driving the change in an attempt to target Washington’s so-called "Deep State."
"The NSC is the ultimate Deep State. It's Marco vs. the Deep State. We're gutting the Deep State," a White House official told Axios.
The NSC is actually located within the White House, and it functions to serve the president's office, guiding it on national security, military and foreign affairs matters.
The NSC will still exist, though massively shrunk down in size.
A vast majority of Trump's supporters are in favor of gutting the agency, along with several others.
Only time will tell how the new level of efficiency will serve the government and the American people.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Radically pro-abortion? Check. An extremist on the LGBT issues, especially body mutilations for kids? Check. A long series of blatantly anti-Christian attacks on people of faith? Check, and check again. Specifically trying to hurt parents? Check. Orchestrated attacks on President Donald Trump. Again, check.
So what else is needed in a state that has gone so far left that some of its agenda points are being shunned even by California?
Of course, gun control.
That's exactly where Colorado has gone with a new law that now is being condemned as a "grotesque misuse of government power."
And, a report from the Rocky Mountain Voice explained officials in one Colorado county now have asked the Department of Justice to move against the latest leftism.
The state already has called abortion a "constitutional" right. It pushes for the LGBT agenda to the point of repeatedly losing at the Supreme Court. Its lawmakers considered a plan that could have been used to eliminate parental rights if they "deadnamed" a child. And the all-Democrat state Supreme Court tried to skew the 2024 presidential election with its attempt to remove Trump from the ballot.
The gun issue is a reach as far as any.
The report said, "Would you need a perfect GPA to speak your mind or worship freely? Mesa County officials say Colorado's new gun law is treating the Second Amendment that way – and they've asked the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene."
Commissioners in a three-page latter have urged the feds to review Senate Bill 25-003, calling it a "grotesque misuse of government power."
That's because it "effectively imposes a discriminatory test on anyone wishing to lawfully own or carry a firearm.
The law, which takes effect in August 2026, requires residents to complete state-approved firearms training, score 90% on a written exam and obtain conditional approval from their sheriff's office every five years in order to receive or renew a permit."
Commissioner JJ Fletcher explained to the Rocky Mountain Voice the county was left with no choice, when leftists in Denver ignored public concern.
"I feel strongly… that our constitutional rights as citizens have been violated by SB3," Fletcher said. "It violates our residents' civil rights. We want to have the ability to exercise our Second Amendment rights."
The commissioners pointed out things the leftists in the legislature apparently could not see: "As a nation, we do not require citizens to pass an exam to speak freely under the First Amendment, or to vote under the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. Yet, in Democrat-controlled Colorado, the right to keep and bear arms is being conditioned upon financial means, test-taking proficiency, and the ability to navigate government bureaucracy."
In fact, the letter charges the Democrat majority in Colorado's government with having re-enacted earlier American history, when the nation used "poll taxes, literacy tests, and voter intimidation imposed by Democrats in the post-CIvIl War South."
"Today, state policymakers have enacted a disturbingly similar framework – not to block voting, but to obstruct the constitutional right to self-defense," the commissioners wrote.
Further, the commissioners warn the state likely is in violation of "District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen."
"Those all affirm that the right to bear arms is individual and that states cannot impose excessive or arbitrary restrictions," the letter explained.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Another scandal from the era of Joe Biden in the White House has been uncovered in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., was left stunned.
That was by the fact that the Biden administration handed out a "staggering" $93 billion in loans and commitments during the final 76 days of Biden's tenure, apparently without even reviewing a business operating plan or a project review.
A report at PJMedia documents Kennedy's reaction when Energy Secretary Christopher Wright dropped the bombshell.
"The 76-day period you're talking about, that's the period between the time that President Trump was elected and President Biden left office. Is that right?" Kennedy demanded.
"That is correct," Wright said.
"How do you do due diligence on one loan, much less $93 billion?" Kennedy asked.
"I think it's probably pretty clear it wasn't done in many cases. There were commitments made from businesses that provided no business plan, no numbers about their own financial solvency, or how this project actually worked," Wright confirmed.
Kennedy continued, "So, so you're telling me that the Department of Energy in the 76-day period before their boss was gonna leave office, gave or loaned money to, to entities that had no business plan?"
Yes, Wright affirmed.
"No financials?" Kennedy asked.
"Correct. I've come in with great concern about how this institution, this great American institution, has been run and how American taxpayer money has been handled," Wright explained.
A review now is under way, he confirmed.
Wright also confirmed he could not provide assurance that none of the recipients lied.
And Kennedy asked about fraud.
"Is it conceivable that some of these folks… came to you with a half-baked idea?" he said
"Very conceivable. In fact, I've seen such plans … that didn't have a business plan — just a promise to develop one later," Wright said.
Wright assured the senator he would be turning down wasteful projects and referring those who acted inappropriately to the Department of Justice.
The money handed out during those 76 days was more than double to loan total from the previous 15 years, the report said.
Medicaid will no longer pay for so-called gender affirming care thanks to GOP-led legislation, Newsmax reported. The "big, beautiful bill" passed in the House on Thursday included the eleventh-hour addition banning federal funding for the controversial medical care.
An earlier version of the bill prohibited treatments for children under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. It bars these federal programs from paying for hormone treatments, puberty blockers, and bodily mutilations for gender-confused minors.
A manager's amendment later added to the bill extended the prohibition to recipients regardless of age. The final bill passed 215-214, with all Democrats and just two Republicans voting against it.
Andy Harris, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, skirted the issue by voting "present." Predictably, the left was not pleased with this provision and its implications.
The passage of this bill already triggered leftists as it codified much of President Donald Trump's agenda. However, it's particularly offensive to people like Caleb Smith, director of LGBTQI+ policy at the Center for American Progress, because of the transgender care issue
Smith claims that the expansion is proof that banning gender affirming care outright was the goal all along. "The bans on coverage for trans medical care were made so much worse, really, in the eleventh hour of this bill," Smith said in a statement.
"And what a display of how it's really not just about youth. It's never just been about youth; It's always been about curtailing access to medical care and bodily autonomy. All they had to do was strike ‘under 18' from the bill, and now it's everybody," Smith went on.
"There's a wildly strong case for this to be discrimination — it is discrimination. It really clearly violates equal protection because what we're saying, essentially, is that if you are a cisgender man and you want access to testosterone, you can have it, but if you are a transgender man and you want access to testosterone, ‘Sorry, we're not going to cover that,'" Smith claimed.
This argument about discrimination would be credible if the treatments being proposed weren't about genital mutilation and chemical castration, but it's not. There's no reason these should be part of medical treatments, let alone those paid for by the American people, as some Republicans have pointed out.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) was the one who pushed through the ban for children after speaking out against it for years. "The Crenshaw Amendment will become law — and it's long overdue," Crenshaw said.
"Gender transition procedures are the lobotomy of our generation. So-called ‘gender-affirming care' isn't healthcare — it's fringe science with no proven benefit and massive risks," Crenshaw asserted.
He touted his addition to the bill in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday. "Just a year ago, few believed we could put a stop to the radical gender ideology being pushed on kids—especially the kind masquerading as medicine, funded with your tax dollars. But now, we’re about to do exactly that," he said in the caption.
Just a year ago, few believed we could put a stop to the radical gender ideology being pushed on kids—especially the kind masquerading as medicine, funded with your tax dollars. But now, we’re about to do exactly that.
The Crenshaw Amendment in President Trump’s One Big… pic.twitter.com/cRlvCfZeeW
— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) May 21, 2025
The issue of transgender medicine has been divisive, but limiting government spending on it is long overdue. These procedures are barbaric and ghastly, and it's about time someone put the brakes on them, even if it's just through cutting some of the funding.
Former first lady Michelle Obama mused about what it would be like to be a "single girl" staying with Airbnb CEO and co-founder Brian Chesky, Fox News reported. This comment comes as divorce rumors continue to swirl about a possible split.
Michelle Obama has been trying to ride the wave of her former first lady fame with the creation of her new podcast and other endeavors. Part of that has been talking about her relationship with her husband, former President Barack Obama.
Amid constant chatter that hints at a possible divorce, which Michelle Obama has repeatedly denied, the former first lady seems intent on adding fuel to the fire. She did so during a discussion with Chesky on her "IMO" podcast, which she hosts with her brother Craig Robinson, released Wednesday.
.
During the podcast, Chesky shared how he was now offering his home as an Airbnb. "Starting today, my home is now on Airbnb (yes, this is my actual home and I’ll be there when guests are here)," he posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Nov. 22, 2022.
He said his weekend bookings are popular and that he offers guests homemade chocolate chip cookies among other amenities. "We will work out together and train until total muscle failure (after we’ve eaten lots of cookies)," Chesky said.
Michelle Obama was very eager for this experience, noting that she had not had his homemade cookies even though she and Barack Obama are longtime friends with Chesky. Chesky quipped that she would have to book with him for that perk.
Michelle Obama's answer was crafted in a way that perhaps reveals a little too much about her state of mind. "I have to say, Brian, if I'm a single girl out there, and I find out that Brian Chesky is single, and I can, like, stay in his house..." Michelle Obama teased.
Chesky said that Barack and Michelle Obama have tried to play matchmaker for him in the past. "I'm very invested in Brian’s love life," the former first lady confirmed.
Although Michelle Obama was being playful with Chesky, the context of this remark matters. There have been several reports that her marriage is on the rocks as she opens up about her life.
The most compelling evidence came after Michelle Obama did not attend the funeral of former President Jimmy Carter with her husband, nor did she accompany him to President Donald Trump's inauguration, USA Today reported. Her explanation was just that she didn't want to.
"My decision to skip the inauguration – or my decision to make choices at the beginning of this year that suited me – were met with such ridicule and criticism. People couldn't believe that I was saying no for any other reason," the former first lady said.
"They had to assume that my marriage was falling apart," Michelle Obama added. She later claimed, "If I were having problems with my husband, everybody would know about it."
It's unclear whether Michelle Obama unconsciously fuels these rumors or if it's some sort of publicity strategy. Whatever the case may be, it seems there's no shortage of instances that seem to suggest that there may be trouble in the Obama marriage.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been cleaning house at the National Security Council at the direction of President Donald Trump.
Rubio has been on a mission to purge the 'deep state' from important government boards and councils, as well as fundamentally reshape certain government bodies to fight the shadow government that has been running Washington D.C. for decades.
President Trump has made the National Security Council an important target for reform. The Council is a notoriously bureaucratic institution staffed by career officials who oppose Trump's agenda.
One unnamed White House official stated, "The NSC is the ultimate Deep State. It's Marco vs. the Deep State. We're gutting the Deep State."
Of the 350 staff, about half have been cut and moved to other agencies to reduce the influence of the NSC and the bureaucrats who have enjoyed unchallenged rule for years.
In a statement to Axios, Rubio explained, "The right-sizing of the NSC is in line with its original purpose and the president's vision. The NSC will now be better positioned to collaborate with agencies."
Over the past years, the NSC has become instrumental in carrying out policies instead of its original advisory role. Because of the NSC's multi-layered committee system, the organization is completely inefficient in executing policy as opposed to advising.
Another White House official pointed this flaw out by stating, "That's the bottom-to-the-top approach that doesn't work. It's going away. All those things feeding up to principals are the unnecessary piece."
Purging the NSC and reforming it is crucial to President Trump's mission to reshape American foreign policy.
In contrast to past presidents, Trump's foreign policy prioritizes American interests, global peace, and stability. An example of this policy is Trump's decision to lift sanctions on Syria to encourage stability in the region, despite the fact that Syria's leader is classified as a terrorist.
The mission for Rubio is to reshape government to immediately and quickly respond to the orders of President Trump. If Trump wants it done, it needs to be done, instead of being filtered through four layers of committees staffed by career bureaucrats.
Rubio is flexing his power in cleaning up government agencies, and one staffer told Axios, "Marco is the one in charge and calling the shots."
When Trump nominated Rubio to be his Secretary of State, some were concerned that he wouldn't have the fortitude to be ruthless in making cuts. However, it appears that Rubio has proven to be a warrior for Trump's agenda and is determined to dismantle the 'swamp.'
The NSC isn't the only corrupt government body that Rubio has had a hand in dismantling. Rubio has been hard at work for months destroying the corrupt money laundering scheme that was USAID.
Americans who voted for Trump in November ought to be excited by the work that the Trump administration is doing to cut down and burn Washington D.C.'s corrupt bureaucracy.
Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a resolution on the House floor seeking to expel Rep. LaMonica McIver after she was charged with assaulting law enforcement officers, Breitbart reported. The New Jersey Democrat took part in a riot at a detention center for illegal immigrants earlier this month.
On Wednesday, Mace filed the resolution citing McIver's conduct at the detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. She shared the news in a post to X, formerly Twitter, the same day.
"BREAKING: We just filed an Official Resolution to Expel Lamonica McIver from the U.S. House of Representatives," Mace captioned an image of the resolution. "No one is above the law. Assault is a crime. The American people deserve better," she added.
🚨 BREAKING: We just filed an Official Resolution to Expel Lamonica McIver from the U.S. House of Representatives.
📣 No one is above the law. Assault is a crime. The American people deserve better. pic.twitter.com/3JkOqGNkur
— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) May 21, 2025
On Monday, the Justice Department announced charges against McIver stemming from her "assaulting, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement" during a May 9 protest at Delaney Hall. She and two other members of Congress claimed to be there in an official capacity.
President Donald Trump is cracking down on illegal immigration, so this was an opportune time to make a show of opposition to it, which they claimed was mere oversight. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was also in attendance and was arrested but had charges dropped.
McIver was involved in an altercation in which she allegedly "slammed her forearm into the body of a uniformed agent while trying to "restrain the agent by forcibly grabbing him." She also attempted to thwart the officers' ability to handcuff Baraka and allegedly "pushed an ICE officer and used her forearms to forcibly strike the agent."
Mace believes the country absolutely cannot stand for this from an elected official. "In a time when public trust in government is at a historic low, the House must act decisively," Mace announced.
"The charges are serious. And the public deserves to know that criminal conduct in the halls of Congress has consequences," Mace added.
Although this didn't directly involve the president, it was his policies that McIver and others were ultimately protesting against. The Hill reported that Trump wholeheartedly agreed with the charges against McIver and her ilk.
“Oh, give me a break. Did you see her? She was out of control," Trump said to reporters about the incident. "The days of woke are over. That woman — I have no idea who she is," Trump went on.
"That woman was out of control. She was shoving federal agents — she was out of control. The days of that crap are over in this country. We’re going to have law and order," he added.
The president expressed exactly what the rest of America has been thinking about this incident. These people are elected officials and should be held to a higher standard, especially considering all of the caterwauling they did about the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.
Based on reports of the incident, the charges against McIver are absolutely warranted, as is a public censure and expulsion from Congress, if that's what it comes to. This nonsense won't stop until they're all held accountable, and that's exactly what Mace is doing.
A federal judge has ordered two Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board who were fired to be reinstated, Fox News reported. President Donald Trump terminated all three of the Democrats on the board, leaving one lone Republican.
Two of the fired board members filed a lawsuit in February. The third Democratic member who was fired was just days from her term ending anyway and did not join the legal action.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton found in favor of the terminated board members on the basis that Trump's firing without cause hindered their mission. Congress had established the board after 9/11 to make sure that any counterterrorism matters would not interfere with privacy and civil liberties.
With Walton's ruling, he claimed that allowing the president to summarily fire them effectively made the oversight body "beholden to the very authority it is supposed to oversee on behalf of Congress and the American people." The Trump administration disagrees.
The firings came in January, not long after Trump took office, Newsmax reported. The PCLOB spokesman, Alan Silverleib, announced on Jan. 27 that members Travis LeBlanc and Ed Felton, along with Chairwoman Sharon Bradford Franklin, had been let go the week before.
"The agency, however, has significant ability to continue functioning with its full staff and remaining Member Beth Williams to continue the Board's important mission, including its advice and oversight functions, and its current projects," Silverleib's statement said. The board typically consists of five members, but there was already one vacancy when the three members were ousted.
Franklin was already on her way out, but still expressed her dismay at the decision. "This isn't about me — my term was set to end later this week anyway," Franklin claimed in a statement at the time.
"But I am devastated by the attack on the board's independence and the fact that our agency will have too few members to issue official reports." LeBLanc's statement at the time revealed the basis for the eventual lawsuit.
"I regret that the board's partisan shift will ultimately undermine not only the mission of the agency, but public trust and confidence in the ability of the government to honor privacy rights, respect civil liberties, honestly inform the public, and follow the law," he said. Indeed, the judge's decision reflected LeBlanc's assertion.
Walton believes that at-will appointment negates the committee's power. "To hold otherwise would be to bless the President’s obvious attempt to exercise power beyond that granted to him by the Constitution and shield the Executive Branch’s counterterrorism actions from independent oversight, public scrutiny, and bipartisan congressional insight regarding those actions," Walton wrote in his decision.
However, Trump believes it's within the president's power to make such personnel decisions. "The Constitution gives President Trump the power to remove personnel who exercise his executive authority," Harrison Fields, White House spokesman, said.
"The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue," Fields added. Trump will have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, though it's unclear whether they will find in his favor.
The judiciary seems particularly stacked against Trump this term as they thwart him at every opportunity. This is the latest in a string of decisions to block the president's moves.
Still, the committee's oversight is not for the president but rather the intelligence and counterterrorism agencies. As the highest executive, Trump should be able to make these personnel decisions regardless of how the court feels about it.
U.S. District Judge David Joseph of the Western District of Louisiana struck down a Biden-era rule that required employers to give workers time off for abortions on Wednesday, saying that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overreached its authority when it included abortion with pregnancy-related conditions that receive job protections.
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) was passed in 2022 with bipartisan support.
The text of the act requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide “reasonable accommodations to a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions."
During the review process, the EEOC got 54,000 comments urging it not to include abortion in the rule, while 40,000 commented in favor of adding it.
The suit was brought by attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic University and two Catholic dioceses.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill celebrated the decision: “Victory! A federal court has granted Louisiana’s request to strike down an EEOC rule requiring employers to accommodate employees’ purely elective abortions. This is a win for Louisiana and for life!”
A Better Balance, a legal advocacy group that supported the PWFA, conversely described the ruling as a part of a “broader attack on women’s rights and reproductive freedom.”
While the Trump administration is not likely to appeal the ruling, it has defended the PWFA under other circumstances.
The DOJ has not been super-friendly to life so far, which is odd because Trump had a big part in overturning Roe V. Wade.
Earlier in May, the agency tried to get legal challenges brought by Missouri, Kansas and Idaho to restrict access to the abortion pill dismissed.
Abortion pills account for the vast majority of abortions in the U.S.
Trump has resisted GOP pressure to outlaw abortion on a national level.
He most recently expressed some support for a 15-week abortion ban, which would not prevent most of these early-term, pill abortions.
This dichotomy is difficult to understand, but it seems to be a more nuanced view of abortion than many Republicans want to see.