Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent after the court's 7-2 ruling allowing so-called "ghost guns" to be regulated, the Daily Caller reported. The law, which Thomas called an "overreach," was enacted during President Joe Biden's term.
Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinion, which struck down a lower court's decision to block the statute the high court determined was in line with the Gun Control Act. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who President Donald Trump appointed.
"The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed. Because the court of appeals held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," Gorsuch wrote.
FPC LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court has upheld the ATF's "frame or receiver" rule. You can read the opinion here: https://t.co/qcBmmWGcBX pic.twitter.com/uMCAxV9gUq
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) March 26, 2025
Ghost guns, which are sold as separate parts that can be assembled into a firearm, could potentially fall into a regulatory gray area. The case before the Supreme Court was supposed to answer that category question.
While the majority of the court believed that parts could be regulated, Thomas didn't see it that way. “The statutory terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of ‘firearm,'” Thomas wrote in his dissent.
"That should end the case. The majority instead blesses the Government’s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute," Thomas charged.
The 76-year-old justice worries that such a broad application of the law goes beyond this case. "Employing its novel ‘artifact noun’ methodology, the majority charts a different course that invites unforeseeable consequences and offers no limiting principle," Thomas wrote.
Alito's dissent noted that the court could have struck down specific applications of law without threatening the entirety of the legislation. "A law passed by Congress or a State Legislature should not be held to be entirely unenforceable just because it would be unconstitutional to apply it in just a few situations," Alito wrote.
Proponents of rules requiring registration for these do-it-yourself gun kits believe it's necessary and not at all an infringement on Second Amendment rights. According to CNN, the law in question requires that ghost guns be traceable and registered without banning them.
In fact, some believe that the draw of these kits is precisely due to a lack of regulation. "Ghost guns are the gun industry’s way of skirting commonsense gun laws and arming dangerous people without background checks," David Pucino, Giffords Law Center deputy chief counsel and legal director, said.
"We are thrilled that the Supreme Court has upheld the ATF rule that treats ghost guns as what they are: gun," Pucino added. The 2022 legislation came after these weapons were increasingly showing up in crimes.
According to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives statistics, the number of kit guns recovered at crime scenes went from 1,600 in 2017 to more than 19,000 four years later. This led to the necessity of addressing the problem and what to do about it.
Ghost guns are difficult to trace and regulate because of how they are sold. However, if the government has any ability to regulate firearms, then it's necessary to make sure there are no workarounds for people who would otherwise not be able to own or use firearms.
While families like the Clintons, Bidens, and Obamas seem to have a lot in common, former first lady Michelle Obama will not follow in her husband's footsteps and try to run for the presidency.
Another former first lady, Hillary Clinton, who, like Obama, holds a law degree in her own right, famously pursued that endeavor to disastrous ends in 2016 when she squared off against President Donald Trump before his first term in office.
Because Obama was so well-liked within her husband's party, many campaign strategists have been aware that she could usher in a third Obama administration if she ran for president.
However, Obama said in a recent interview that a presidential run is "never gonna happen" and insisted she just doesn't want to move back to the White House.
“When people ask me would I ever run, the answer is no,” Obama told Kylie Kelce, wife of retired NFL star Jason Kelce, on a recent episode of the Not Gonna Lie podcast.
“If you ask me that, then you have absolutely no idea the sacrifice that your kids make when your parents are in that role.”
“Not only am I not interested in politics in that way, but the thought of, like, putting my girls back into that, you know, spotlight when they are just now establishing themselves. It’s like, you know, okay. I think we’ve done enough.”
Michelle Obama says she has zero intention of ever running for president, says she has already done enough.
The comment came on Kylie Kelce's podcast.
"And so when people ask me would I ever run, the answer is no."
"If you ask me that [question], then you have absolutely no… pic.twitter.com/CquJDY1WIe
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 25, 2025
The daughters of former president Barack Obama, Sasha and Malia, grew up at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and were seven and ten years old, respectively, when they moved into the White House.
“The day-to-day kind of challenges that any parent has with teenagers, we had it on 100,” the former first lady said.
“I longed for the days when, you know, just write on the wall. …We can wash that off.”
“I was so glad when we got out of the White House,” she added. “I wanted them to have the freedom of not having the eyes of the world on them. I mean, they still are dealing with paparazzi and being who they are and trying to carve out their own identity.”
Even though Kelce's podcast featuring the ex-first lady had over 277,000 listeners, many wondered if Obama would really not run for the office that her husband had held.
“She has zero intention but at any time it can become ‘I’m saving democracy this isn’t my choice’ lmao,” one user posted to X.
“Retirement’s overrated – bet she’ll change her mind!” another listener commented.
“[This] sounds like ‘let’s make it more dramatic when I finally say yes’; good plan,” according to one post.
Republicans on Capitol Hill are looking at ways to put an end to the judicial overreach that has stymied President Trump's agenda, but impeachment isn't topping the list.
While top Republican leaders are reluctant to target individual judges, they are considering legislation to stop district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. Critics of the controversial practice - which allows judges to apply their rulings universally and not just to the parties in a case - say it allows district courts to usurp the powers of the president.
In the most significant example to date, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. ordered Trump to stop the deportation of alleged gang members and return them to the United States. Trump called for the judge, James Boasberg, to be impeached, prompting pushback from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts.
The rate at which courts are blocking Trump is unprecedented: the administration has already been slammed with 15 injunctions. For comparison, courts issued just 14 during Joe Biden's term and 12 during the whole eight years of the Obama administration.
Democrats argue that Trump is facing more obstruction because he's pushing legal limits, but the president and his supporters see a clear pattern of bias from activist judges.
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Trump ally Jim Jordan (R-OH), is holding a hearing next week on nationwide injunctions and Darrell Issa (R-CA) has proposed a bill that would limit their use. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate by Josh Hawley of Missouri (R).
Republicans like Hawley argue that targeting individual judges is an ineffective way of combating "systemic" activism from the bench.
“I would just say to my Republican colleagues: I’m really concerned about what’s going on,” Hawley told reporters. “I don’t know that switching out the judges is going to ultimately do a whole lot, unless we address the systemic issue here, which is the use of this so-called power."
"So, I think we ought to just make it clear. If you’re a district court, you can bind the parties who are in front of you or the parties who are in your district, but you can not bind people outside your purview.”
While rank-and-file Republicans such as Texas's Brandon Gill have pushed for impeaching judges like Boasberg, the efforts have met with a tepid response from GOP leadership.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has said all options are on the table, but he has pointed to other mechanisms for holding judges accountable when they step out of line.
“We do have authority over the federal courts, as you know,” Johnson said. “We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts, and all these other things.”
Trump has called on the Supreme Court to weigh in on the use of nationwide injunctions "BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE."
"STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE," Trump wrote in a social media post. "If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!"
Durable goods orders in the United States experienced a surprising increase in February, contrary to the projections of a decrease.
This unexpected uptick signals robust business investment in several sectors crucial to the economy, a huge boon to President Donald Trump's administration.
In February, orders for durable goods — items expected to last three years or more — rose by 0.9% to a total of $289.3 billion. This outcome exceeded economists' predictions, which anticipated a 1.0% decline. Particularly noteworthy is that when excluding the often-volatile transportation category, orders still grew by 0.7%, greatly surpassing the expected increase of 0.3%.
The automotive industry proved to be a significant contributor to this growth. Orders for automobiles increased by 4.0%, while the shipment of motor vehicles and parts rose by 3.9%. This demonstrates ongoing consumer and business demand for new vehicles, reflecting a healthy level of activity within this key market segment.
Despite the overall positive trend, core capital goods orders, which exclude aircraft and reflect business spending plans, saw a slight decline of 0.3% in February. This follows a more significant increase of 0.9% in January. Nonetheless, year-to-date figures show that core capital goods orders are still up by 7.3%, highlighting continued business investment over a longer period.
Other sectors contributing to the uptick include computers and machinery, with orders rising by 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively. These increases suggest steady demand within these sectors, which are essential for numerous industries.
Despite the notable gains in several areas, some categories saw declines. Orders for non-defense aircraft and parts decreased by 5.0%. However, this category often experiences volatility and does not detract significantly from the overall positive outlook suggested by the broader data.
The durable goods report reflects resilience in business demand and investment amidst broader economic concerns. These include persistent challenges such as inflation and global market fluctuations, which have been areas of significant focus.
Transportation equipment orders overall rose by 1.5%. Meanwhile, inventories showed a slight increase of 0.1% to $533.2 billion, with primary metals inventories declining, while fabricated metal products remained steady. These inventory adjustments indicate businesses managing their stock in response to demand fluctuations.
Beyond the report on durable goods, there are other indicators of strong economic performance. Recent data also shows increases in new home sales and industrial output, further supporting the view of continued economic activity. These additional metrics paint a picture of sectors rebounding and expanding, despite underlying challenges.
While core capital goods shipments climbed by 0.9%, showcasing delivery of previously placed orders, the overall picture for February is one of growth and resilience. Businesses continue to invest across various sectors, underscoring confidence in future economic conditions.
As industries adjust to market demands, the unexpected increase in durable goods orders stands out as a key indicator of economic health and business confidence. This growth, particularly within significant sectors like automobiles and technology, suggests that businesses anticipate continued engagement from consumers and are willing to invest in maintaining production and innovation.
Looking forward, the resilience seen in durable goods and other economic indicators will likely remain crucial as companies navigate challenging market conditions. The commitment to investment reflected in these orders could play a pivotal role in sustaining economic stability and growth in the ensuing months.
NASA has made a bold move by terminating $420 million in contracts, reports indicated -- a decision driven by a new focus on optimizing resources in line with its evolving mission priorities.
The space agency's decision forms part of a larger governmental initiative to enhance operational efficiency and has led to significant concerns in the scientific community.
The decision comes alongside NASA's effort to streamline spending and redirect funds toward high-impact projects. This shift resulted in the suspension of contracts considered redundant or not aligned with its core objectives. Among those affected are programs linked to climate science and diversity, sparking debates among experts and stakeholders.
Though specifics regarding the exact contracts cut are unclear, organizational hints provide some insight. The removal of language focused on promoting diversity within missions, like the Artemis mission's inclusion goals, signals a significant shift. The mission had previously emphasized bringing the first woman and person of color to the moon, ambitions now less prominently featured on official websites.
The termination decisions also directly impacted individuals within the agency. One prominent change is the dismissal of a chief scientist who was preparing to lead a major segment of the International Panel on Climate Change. This move underscores the reorientation away from international climate science efforts.
The controversy extends to the academic world, with grant cancellations drawing criticism from researchers. NASA's recent termination of $45 million in "Change Management Support Services" contracts, each valued at $15 million, led to confusion and dissatisfaction. These agreements were initially slated to offer leadership support across the agency.
Sarah Hörst, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, publicly expressed her dismay regarding the severed funding, noting that grant cancellations had already begun. Meredith MacGregor, another academic from the same institution, highlighted the abrupt nature of these terminations, arguing their unwarranted nature given prior peer reviews and ongoing work.
Financially, the cutbacks reflect comparisons with past agency expenditures, such as the Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer mission, which launched in late 2021. The mission's costs nearly parallel the current contract terminations. These decisions are indicative of NASA's desire to ensure future endeavors promise significant returns.
NASA's initiatives are part of a broader governmental push driven by the Department of Government Efficiency, which aims to streamline public spending. The termination of consultancy contracts, mainly those providing leadership support services, aligns with this objective.
Bethany Stevens, NASA's press secretary, emphasized the agency's commitment to resource optimization conforming with the government's efficiency strategies. Stevens highlighted that by shedding these contracts, NASA seeks to direct taxpayer dollars toward projects promising substantial impact while retaining essential functions.
Reorienting its efforts, NASA is increasingly aligning with Mars exploration initiatives, a shift closely associated with entities like SpaceX and visionary Elon Musk. This alignment suggests a future focus on Martian missions, potentially redirecting not just funds but strategic intent.
These cost-saving measures have understandably added to anxieties within NASA, particularly with recent job layoffs and fears of additional workforce reductions. The contract cuts and strategic realignment are viewed as precursors to more profound organizational changes.
Debate continues as academia and industry watch NASA's transformations unfold. With essential climate science initiatives curtailed and diversity goals seemingly deprioritized, many professionals worry about the long-term implications for scientific research and inclusivity.
The situation remains fluid, with ongoing discussions likely to influence future agency strategies. How NASA balances innovation with resource management will define its path forward and impact its legacy in both science and social responsibility.
If you want a sense of how desperate and lost Democrats have become, look no further than Maxine Waters' (D-Ca.) latest rant against President Trump.
While protesting against DOGE over the weekend, Waters made the bizarre suggestion that the president should deport his own wife, Melania.
Waters suggested that the First Lady somehow benefited from the practice of automatic birthright citizenship that her husband is currently targeting.
Trump's wife is a naturalized citizen who was born in Slovenia, so Waters' point is totally off, to put it mildly.
Melania Trump became a U.S. citizen in 2006. She later sponsored her parents for citizenship, and they were naturalized in 2018.
Although Melania entered the U.S. through the legal process, that hasn't stopped Trump's critics on the left from sometimes invoking her immigrant background to attack his policies against illegal immigration.
"When he [Trump] talks about birthright, and he's going to undo the fact that the Constitution allows those who are born here, even if the parents are undocumented, they have a right to stay in America," Waters said.
"If he wants to start looking so closely to find those who were born here and their parents were undocumented, maybe he ought to first look at Melania."
"We don't know whether or not her parents were documented. And maybe we better just take a look," she added.
The Trump administration has argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was never meant to grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
The relevant section of the Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Critics of the current practice, including the Trump administration, argue that the key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes those who fall under the jurisdiction of a foreign power, such as illegal aliens.
Trump signed an executive order to terminate birthright citizenship on his first day back in the White House. Last week, Trump asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the consequential legal battle.
Waters is a notorious for her inflammatory attacks on Trump. She infamously encouraged mobs of people to harass his staff during his first presidential term as Democrats whipped up a furor over his border policies.
Trump, at the time, called her a "low IQ person."
Congress received sworn testimony that no classified information was shared in Signal chats about a military strike in Yemen, as Democrats call on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to resign over the messages that were leaked by a liberal journalist.
The Atlantic published the full chats on Wednesday, which show Hegseth sharing details about weather, timing, and weapon systems shortly before a successful operation against Houthi rebels.
Across two days of hearings, Democrats grilled CIA director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard over the chats and their national security implications.
“If this information had gotten out, American lives could have been lost. If the Houthis had this information they could reposition their defensive systems,” Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) said Tuesday.
Gabbard and Ratcliffe both said during Tuesday's hearing before the Senate Intelligence Community that no classified information was included, although they added it's up to Hegseth to decide what is classified and what isn't. Ratcliffe also defended the use of Signal, an encrypted chat platform, as appropriate for a CIA official.
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee pounced on the Atlantic's publication of the full chat messages Wednesday, with some lawmakers presenting poster boards with the texts printed on them. But Trump's officials stood their ground.
"My answers haven't changed. I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn't transfer any classified information, and at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success," Ratcliffe said.
The chats mostly consist of a foreign policy discussion among top Trump officials, including Hegseth, national security adviser Michael Waltz, and Vice President J.D. Vance, about when to strike at Houthi rebels who have crippled shipping in the Suez Canal. In the most heavily scrutinized texts, Hegseth shared a mission update that reads in part, "Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch."
"THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP," Hegseth wrote elsewhere in the text.
Later, Waltz shared an update to confirm that a target was successfully taken out. Waltz has since taken responsibility for adding Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat room by mistake.
While the Trump administration says the controversy is being exaggerated, Democrats have said the kind of information included in Hegseth's messages was sensitive enough to be classified. Wednesday's House hearing grew contentious when one Democrat, Jimmy Gomez (Ca.), asked if Hegseth had been drinking.
"I think that’s an offensive line of questioning. The answer is no,” Ratcliffe said.
Gabbard conceded the chats were sensitive in nature, but she denied that they rose to the classified level.
“The conversation was candid and sensitive, but as the president national security adviser stated, no classified information was shared," Gabbard said.
"There were no sources, methods, locations or war plans that were shared. This was a standard update to the national security Cabinet that was provided alongside updates that were given to foreign partners in the region,” Gabbard added.
Vice president J.D. Vance will fly out of Washington D.C. Friday to see Greenland with his wife Usha, as President Trump continues to ramp up demands for the United States to take over the Arctic island.
While it might look like a couple's vacation, the visit is seen by many as a charm offensive to advance President Trump's goal of annexing the island.
The vice president's involvement is a change in plans. His wife was initially set to lead a U.S. delegation to Greenland's capital, Nuuk, for a tour of cultural sites with national security adviser Michael Waltz.
After international backlash from Greenland and Denmark, the Trump administration curtailed the itinerary to a stop at a U.S. military base.
Greenland's rich mineral resources and Arctic location give the island strategic importance, especially as Russia and China escalate their presence in the Arctic region. The U.S. maintains a single military base in Greenland, Pituffik Space Base.
Trump's repeated threats to annex the island, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, have inflamed both Greenland and Denmark.
In a short and diplomatic video, Vice President Vance said there was "so much excitement around Usha's visit to Greenland this Friday" that he couldn't let her go alone.
The vice president said he is eager to "check out" the security situation in Greenland, as he emphasized the administration's goal is to strengthen Greenland's security and the security of the world.
“We’re going to check out how things are going there,” Vance said in the video shared Tuesday. “Speaking for President Trump, we want to reinvigorate the security of the people of Greenland because we think it’s important to protecting the security of the entire world.”
Looking forward to visiting Greenland on Friday!🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/p3HslD3hhP
— JD Vance (@JDVance) March 25, 2025
The administration's initial plans sparked pushback. Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen accused Trump of exerting "unacceptable pressure," while Greenland insisted that Usha's trip was uninvited and that there was an ulterior motive.
"We are now at a level where it can in no way be characterized as a harmless visit from a politician's wife," Greenland's Prime Minister Múte Egede said.
Ahead of Vice President Vance's trip, President Trump offered a blunt reminder that the United States intends to acquire Greenland one way or another.
"We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it," Trump said Wednesday. "I hate to put it that way, but we're going to have to have it."
The Washington, D.C., shakeup continues as the Trump administration continues to attempt to cut the fat, and do away with waste, thereby sometimes shocking the Democrats' sensibilities.
This appears to be the case after news broke that the Secretary of Homeland Security let slip that another beloved federal agency is on the chopping block, and by now, everyone knows the administration is serious, as The Hill reported.
In this case, it's not USAID or the Department of Education (though those cuts did run deep) but the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) whose days are numbered.
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said in a meeting with cabinet members earlier this week that she plans to "eliminate" FEMA, sending shockwaves through Washington.
For context, while FEMA has been a lifesaver to many (literally and figuratively), in recent years, it's also become a money pit without accountability or efficiency and is believed to be rife with corruption and theft.
While providing a status report on border security, Noem also stated, "We're going to eliminate FEMA." She, however, did not provide further details.
“That’s great. Great job,” President Trump said — appearing to respond to her broader status update.
Trump has voiced his strong disapproval of the emergency management agency and has even hinted at the possibility of eliminating it.
“I’ll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA, or maybe getting rid of FEMA. I think, frankly, FEMA’s not good,” Trump said in January.
Instead of dismantling the agency, a recent executive order from the White House requested a review of disaster response policies.
That executive action called on the Homeland Security secretary to propose changes to ensure “state and local governments and individuals have improved communications with Federal officials and a better understanding of the Federal role.”
FEMA is responsible for the coordination of disaster response in the immediate aftermath of hurricanes and also assists with the long-term recovery process.
Democrats responded to Noem's statement, looking for all the world like narcissists about to lose their supply, asserting that eliminating FEMA would constitute desertion for communities in need.
“The Trump Administration’s grand plan for victims of natural disasters is to abandon them—and it’s a complete non-starter,” Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) said in a written statement.
“This rash decision will harm ongoing disaster recovery efforts, and make it impossible to respond after the next natural disaster,” he added.
The United States Senate has confirmed investment banker and Trump donor John Phelan as the 79th Secretary of the United States Navy, Breitbart reported. The 62-30 vote Monday showed bipartisan support as Phelan received all 51 GOP senators plus 11 Democrats.
President Donald Trump nominated Phelan for the job despite his lack of military experience. Instead, Phelan brings his Harvard Business School education and experience with several investment firms to improve the Navy.
I am honored to be confirmed as the 79th Secretary of the Navy. Thank you to President Trump @WhiteHouse for the trust and confidence he has placed in me, and to @SecDef for his steadfast support. It is the honor and privilege of a lifetime to lead the world’s finest Sailors and… pic.twitter.com/p8UyR5d2TN
— Secretary of the Navy (@SECNAV) March 25, 2025
Former President Joe Biden has left the military in shambles after four years in office. After pushing destructive initiatives like diversity, equity, and inclusion and other ridiculous woke agenda items, morale is at a low point for the armed services.
Phelan promised to address several problems as he believes the Navy is at a "crossroads," the businessman said during his Feb. 27 confirmation hearing. He cited several personnel challenges, including poor housing, record-high suicides, and extended deployments for seamen.
There are also equipment problems, including deferred maintenance on existing vessels and delays in building new ships, not to mention ballooning costs. "These are systemic failures that have gone unaddressed for far too long. Frankly, this is unacceptable," Phelan said.
"The Navy and the Marine Corps already possess extraordinary operational expertise within their ranks. … My role is to utilize that expertise and strengthen it, step outside the status quo and take decisive action with a results-oriented approach," he added.
Phelan is expected to be sworn in within the next couple of days. He is the second armed service secretary to take over following Army Secretary Dan Driscoll's confirmation.
Phelan received praise from President Donald Trump, who had high hopes for his time in the Navy leadership. "John will be a tremendous force for our Naval Servicemembers and a steadfast leader in advancing my America First vision," Trump said during his nomination in November.
"He will put the business of the U.S. Navy above all else. John has excelled in every endeavor, from founding and leading Rugger Management LLC to co-founding MSD Capital, LP, the Private Investment Firm for Michael Dell, CEO of Dell Technologies," Trump went on.
"His Record of Success speaks for itself – A true Champion of American Enterprise and Ingenuity!" the president said. Several other lawmakers and officials praised Phelan after his confirmation, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
"Congratulations John Phelan on being Confirmed as the 79th Secretary of the Navy! Looking forward to supporting our warfighters together," Hegseth wrote on X.
Trump is great at choosing the right people to staff his administration even if his choices are sometimes unconventional. It's difficult to know how Phelan will perform since he comes from business and not the government, but perhaps that will make him all the better for it.