Chief Justice John Roberts defended the role of the courts as an umpire against "excesses" from the other branches of government, even as he continued to ignore widespread misconduct from rogue judges.
While he did not name President Trump, Roberts clearly took a veiled jab at the President, who has repeatedly condemned activist judges for obstructing his administration.
"Well, I've already spoken to that. You know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions," Roberts said at the event in Buffalo, New York. "That's what we're there for," he said, referring to the Supreme Court.
The courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions blocking Trump in various ways from pursuing his agenda. Defending the "independence" of the judiciary, Robert said it is the court's role to correct the "excesses" of the other co-equal branches, but he pointedly failed to mention the excesses of the courts themselves.
"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president," he said.
"Its job is to obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require a degree of independence."
Roberts had previously spoken out against Trump in March after an Obama appointee, James Boasberg, took the extraordinary step of ordering Trump to turn back deportation flights.
When Trump called for the judge to face impeachment, Roberts issued a rare public response stating that the normal appeal process is the appropriate avenue for contesting a ruling.
The problem, as Trump and many others see it, is that the courts are engaged in a practice of systematic and abusive meddling that rises beyond a mere "disagreement."
While an independent judiciary is obviously important, judges must also respect the limits of their own power. Roberts' conservative colleague, Justice Samuel Alito, acknowledged this balance in a recent dissent, writing, "Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law."
While Roberts has yet to publicly comment on the judicial activism that is cropping up everywhere, his court has not been able to avoid the issue completely.
Last month, the Supreme Court ordered Trump to "facilitate" the return of Salvadoran man Kilmar Abrego Garcia, but the justices also instructed a lower court judge in the case to "clarify" her ruling in a manner that reflects "the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."
The Supreme Court has an opportunity to rebuke judicial activism later this week when it hears arguments on birthright citizenship. The Trump administration is using the case to advance its broader objections to the rampant abuse of nationwide injunctions.
Judicial activism is damaging the integrity of the courts, and that ought to concern Roberts, no matter what he thinks about Trump and his rhetoric.
President Trump fired the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, Shira Perlmutter, continuing a purge of suspected "woke" operatives at the Library of Congress.
Perlmutter received an e-mail from the White House explaining that, “your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately.”
Perlmutter was handpicked by Carla Hayden, an Obama appointee who ran the Library of Congress until her sudden firing days ago.
Both women were identified as "deep state liberals" by a conservative activist group, American Accountability Foundation.
"The President and his team have done an admirable and long-needed job cleaning out deep state liberals from the federal government. It is time they show Carla Hayden and Shira Perlmutter the door and return an America First agenda to the nation's intellectual property regulation," Tom Jones the president of the American Accountability Foundation told the Daily Mail.
Trump's wide-ranging purge of "wokeness" from the federal government has included nominally non-partisan institutions, such as the military, that have been recently ideologized by left-wing activists.
Hayden is a regular Democratic donor who criticized efforts to ban LGBT-friendly literature targeting children. Her ten-year term would have ended in 2026.
Perlmutter used to be a policy director at the Patent and Trademark Office and worked on copyright and other areas of intellectual property, the AP reported.
Her firing comes after the Copyright Office released a report on the use of copyrighted materials to train AI models. President Trump is a big supporter of the AI industry, and his close ally, tech billionaire Elon Musk, has called for intellectual property laws to be repealed.
Democrats have suggested Perlmutter was fired because of her report on AI, which was critical of some uses of copyrighted works.
"But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries,” the report said.
Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, claimed the timing is "surely no coincidence" without providing anything further to back up the claim.
“Donald Trump’s termination of Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, is a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis,” Morelle fumed.
The Justice Department confirmed Monday that deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, who is also Trump's former defense attorney, has been named acting Librarian of Congress.
Associate Deputy Attorney General Paul Perkins has been named acting register of copyrights, and Blanche's deputy chief of staff Brian Nieves is the deputy librarian of Congress.
A top economic adviser to President Trump said new taxes on the rich aren't likely - despite Trump's suggestion that it would be "good politics" to make top earners pay more.
A day before Republicans released their tax plan, Kevin Hassett said a tax hike on the rich is "probably not going to happen."
“No, it’s not in the plan right now,” Kevin Hassett told Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures.
Trump has floated a tax hike on the rich to help pay for his sweeping agenda, which includes a tax cut for workers who rely on tips - an idea his electoral opponent Kamala Harris adopted.
Republicans in Congress have resisted Trump's push to raise taxes on the rich, which runs afoul of conservative orthodoxy against raising taxes.
Draft legislation released Monday includes many of Trump's tax proposals, including tax cuts on tips, overtime, and Social Security, but the bill does not include a tax hike on the wealthy.
“But it’s probably not going to happen," Hassett had said of the tax hike. "He literally is putting his priorities first and those priorities are in both versions of the bill that I’ve seen.”
Republicans in Congress are trying to pass Trump's agenda in one "big, beautiful bill," with his first-term tax cuts in danger of expiring at the end of the year.
“But the president is clear that he’s got the objectives that he wants to achieve for the American worker like no tax on overtime," Hassett said.
"That no tax on overtime, by the way, it’s a huge benefit. We were doing some estimates that for a typical unionized worker might be 100, 200 dollars a week. He’s got those things as top priorities in the bill.”
Trump has said any tax increase on the rich would be small, and that it would be "good politics" to make the rich pay for tax relief for those earning less.
"I actually think it's good politics to do it where richer people give up. And it's a very small – it's like a point – but they give it up to benefit the people on lower income," Trump told reporters at the White House last week.
Still, in a Truth Social post, Trump said Republicans "should probably not do it, but I’m OK if they do!!!”
At this stage, it appears clear that Republicans do not have the appetite for Trump's proposal.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
At a time in an age when legacy media corporations are uniformly pro-liberal, pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, pro-Democrat, it just got worse.
But this time, Americans are noticing.
The results of a new Rasmussen polling confirm that a plurality of voters, 44%, agree with the idea that it's not possible to hate the media "enough."
It is the Washington Examiner that was given the poll results.
It explained, "Forty-nine percent believe news bias is getting worse, while, by a margin of 44% to 29%, likely voters agree with the statement: 'No matter how much you hate the media, it's not enough.'"
"Younger voters, older people, Hispanics, Republicans, independents, and even Democrats cited pro-Democratic bias in agreeing that they just can't hate the media enough," the Examiner reported.
Actually, the report confirmed, "Bias in the media has been around forever, and political bias has exploded since President Donald Trump hit the presidential stage. Recent presidents have tried to fight it, but with little luck. Former President Barack Obama, for example, tried to skip over the media and use social media as his direct outreach to voters. Trump's team, which often criticizes the legacy liberal media, has moved to add center-right outlets to the White House press pool for balance."
Even so, consumers still believe, by large numbers, that the media still favors Democrats.
Democrats, by a 43% to 24% margin, agreed that media organizations favor their party over Republicans.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Episcopal Migration Ministries, which took in $53 million in tax funding to resettle 3,600 people in 2023 alone, is abandoning the next round of refugees, refusing to resettle them.
They are white.
The refugee branch of the church organization has worked for decades, on taxpayer funding, to settle refugees from various sources around the world.
But in a letter obtained by the Gateway Pundit, officials announced they are quitting.
"Just over two weeks ago, the federal government informed Episcopal Migration Ministries that under the terms of our federal grant, we are expected to resettle white Afrikaners from South Africa whom the U.S. government has classified as refugees," the organization informed the government.
"In light of our church's steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step. Accordingly, we have determined that, by the end of the federal fiscal year, we will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the U.S. federal government," it said.
The church group claimed, "As Christians, we must be guided not by political vagaries, but by the sure and certain knowledge that the kingdom of God is revealed to us in the struggles of those on the margins. Jesus tells us to care for the poor and vulnerable as we would care for him, and we must follow that command.
"Right now, what that means is ending our participation in the federal government's refugee resettlement program and investing our resources in serving migrants in other ways."
That means the organization will refuse further federal money, and refuse to assist the refugees who are white.
In an announcement posted online, Sean, W. Rowe, the church's presiding bishop, claimed that it was "painful" to see " one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions."
The letter said for nearly 40 years the EMM "has put hands and feet to our church's commitment to seek and serve Christ in migrants and refugees."
Its past sources of refugees have included Ukraine, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Myanmar.
And the letter sought replacement cash for the "more than $50 million" it has been getting annually in federal tax money.
"This is not a loss that can be bridged with donor funds or proceeds from investments. However, we will raise funds for new and expanded migration ministries across the church and for our partners in this ministry."
The Gateway Pundit report said the decision to end a program helping refugees was "all because the Trump administration dared to classify white South African Afrikaners as refugees in need of protection."
"The same Episcopal Church that prided itself on aiding persecuted people from war-torn regions is now walking away from its commitments simply because the next wave of refugees are white Christian farmers — victims of violent racial targeting in post-apartheid South Africa," the report said.
Helping this group, the church announced, would violate its "moral line."
Afrikaner families for years have faced deadly violence, arbitrary land seizures, a weaponized government and military, brutal attacks on them and their farms, and race-based discrimination.
The violence in South Africa is so bad, in fact, the crimes have prompted human rights organizations to raise an alarm.
Helping this group, the church announced, would violate its "moral line."
Afrikaner families for years have faced deadly violence, arbitrary land seizures, a weaponized government and military, brutal attacks on them and their farms, and race-based discrimination.
The violence in South Africa is so bad, in fact, the crimes have prompted human rights organizations to raise an alarm.
It's not the first deep dive into politics for the church. The report explained it was Mariann Budde, of the Episcopal hierarchy, who famously criticized Trump during a politicized inaugural prayer service in Washington.
Trump administration Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Sunday morning that it is safe to fly out of Newark Airport even though there have been two radar outages and a ground stop there in the last two weeks.
A 45-minute ground stop was put in place around 12:30 a.m. Sunday that was still causing brief delays (about 19 minutes per flight) on Monday morning.
The ground stop was due to malfunctioning telecommunications equipment at the Philadelphia Airport that affected Newark. Redundancies were followed successfully, but the ground stop was meant to slow things down to make sure that happened.
The incident followed 90-second radar outages on April 18 and May 9, which caused major delays even though the May 9 outage happened at 3:55 a.m.
Duffy said the number of flights into and out of Newark would be reduced for several weeks while the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) investigated the incidents.
"I fly out of Newark all the time. My family flies out of Newark," Duffy said. "And just when we saw these two incidents… when we have issues, there are policies and procedures in place for controllers and for pilots. They know what to do. It is not ideal, by any stretch."
Duffy said more money is needed to update outdated equipment and air traffic control towers.
'We have to fix it, though. This is an American issue, and it's going to be an American congressional priority, I think, in this coming year, to get us the money to do the three or four-year build that it's going to take to get this completed,' he said.
Duffy admitted to NBC News that he was "concerned" about the conditions of air space all over the country.
"I'm concerned about the whole airspace, right?' he said. "The equipment that we use, much of it we can't buy parts for new. We have to go on eBay and buy parts if one part goes down. You're dealing with really old equipment. We're dealing with copper wires, not fiber, not high-speed fiber. And so this is concerning."
He felt that the system was still safe for now because of redundancies, but that it should be fixed as soon as possible before it becomes too outdated to fix.
"We have redundancies, multiple redundancies in place to keep you safe when you fly," Duffy insisted. "But we should also recognize we're seeing stress on an old network, and it's time to fix it."
Duffy understood that reducing flights through Newark would impact travelers in New York, America's largest city.
"I hate delays," he admitted, but said it was a matter of safety, and that was more important.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden, while he was campaigning to be president, repeatedly promoted the leftist, and unscientific, ideology that boys or men can become girls or women.
Being male or female actually is embedded in the body to the DNA level, so that cannot change.
However, Biden became cheerleader for the ideology that has proven lucrative for providers of chemicals and surgeries, and took that promotion to White House heights while in office.
But he ignored, even while promoting those chemicals and those body-mutilating surgeries as "health care," the results now confirmed in a government study that was being developed at the time, and now is released, revealing that all of those attempts to "change" adults didn't "improve their lives."
The agenda immediately was applied to children, despite the failure in "treating" adults.
In fact, according to a report in the Washington Stand, the report, "Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices," released by the Department of Health and Human Services on May 1, said those "same medical interventions had failed to improve the lives of adults."
"Even after full surgery, "improvement' in their actual life situation is not always observed,' noted a transgender psychologist," the report explained.
The patients' "subjective" feelings varied, with some claiming improvement.
But the report highlights the "weak basis and failed results of medical transitions for minors."
To the question, "Did medical transition at least alleviate gender dysphoria?" the response was, "Interestingly, there was no relationship between reported happiness and stage of transition."
So, the "unsuccessful model for adults in time became the basis for the 'affirming model' for minors," the report said.
The Washington Stand noted that Harry Benjamin, the "father of the transgender medicine," once sued the Journal of the American Medical Association for calling his work "quackery," and lost.
Indeed the report explains that while Benjamin promised to change bodies to "at least resemble those of the sex to which they feel they belong," there are few early instances of those surgical procedures and the first known patient, Einar Wegener, who became Lili Elbe, died in 1931 after an "abyss of suffering."
The agenda moved into the U.S. when in 1952 a former soldier traveled to Denmark for surgery and the media screamed, "EX-GI BECOMES BLONDE BEAUTY: OPERATIONS TRANSFORM BRONX YOUTH." He subsequently was met on his return by 300 reporters and was paid $20,000 for an interview.
Still the agenda remained relatively obscure.
Eventually assessments began with a survey of 229 patients in the Netherlands Gender Care Foundation, and, HHS said, "While the self-reported subjective outcomes were good, objective measures told a different story."
"One in seven [male-to-female transitioners] and one in 36 [female-to-male transitioners] had attempted suicide after treatment began. (Of the total number of patients seen at the NGCF in the previous 10 years, three had committed suicide after treatment.) 60% of the MFs and 37% of the FMs were unemployed and 59% of the MFs and 33% of the FMs had no romantic partners," HHS observed.
"If it is possible to discern a trend in these reports that the subjective well-being of the transsexuals has increased, whereas an 'improvement' in their actual life situation is not always observed," the study said, concluding that surgeries did not appear to lessen patients' gender dysphoria.
"Although a fair number of persons attribute their feelings of happiness to SRS, there appears to be no direct relation between the subjective well-being and the phase of therapy. Those who have completed SRS are not happier or less happy than those who are still in the initial phase of therapy. In other words, a person's positive evaluation of his/her life-in-its-totality is not directly related to his/her progress in physical adjustment to the opposite sex."
The conclusion noted pursuing gender alterations is no assurance of happiness and that actually "can lead to new problems."
Despite the facts, the gender industry developed a model of puberty blockers at 12, cross-sex hormones at 16 and surgery at 18.
The results align with multiple other studies that show a high level of suicide, or attempted suicide, among members of the transgender community.
President Donald Trump recently announced that he is considering reducing tariffs on Chinese imports to 80% in a move aimed at addressing the ongoing trade conflict between the U.S. and China, Newsmax reports. This consideration comes at a critical juncture as officials from both nations are set to engage in important discussions this weekend in Switzerland.
High-level representatives from the U.S. and China are gathering in Geneva for the first major talks since the imposition of strict tariffs that have escalated trade tensions.
The proposal to cut tariffs was initially shared by President Trump on Truth Social, creating a significant buzz in political and economic circles. The planned reduction signals a potential softening of the U.S. stance as both nations prepare to navigate the complex landscape of international trade relations.
The upcoming meeting marks the first significant dialogue between the two countries since the Trump administration's imposition of hefty tariffs. U.S. representatives, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, will meet with a high-level Chinese delegation in Geneva.
This round of talks arrives against a backdrop of growing concern in the U.S. regarding the tariffs' impact on consumer goods pricing and supply chain dynamics. The imposition of tariffs has not only strained economic relations but has also caused repercussions for businesses and consumers on both sides of the Pacific.
The trade discord with China, a leading global exporter, has had significant repercussions. As the world’s second-largest economy, China's role in global trade is crucial, and the continued conflict has posed challenges to its economic stability.
In response to U.S. tariffs, China implemented its own set of retaliatory tariffs, adding further strain to bilateral relations. The original tariffs, enacted on what the Trump administration termed "Liberation Day" on April 2, have gradually intensified, with U.S. tariffs escalating to 145% on Chinese goods, while Chinese tariffs on U.S. products stand at 125%.
President Trump's open consideration to reduce tariffs on Chinese goods was succinctly captured in his exclamation, "80% Tariff on China seems right!” This statement underscores his administration's willingness to recalibrate the trade strategy in anticipation of the Geneva talks.
Observers and stakeholders across various sectors are keenly watching the negotiations, with hopes that easing tariff tensions could foster a more favorable economic environment. The tariff adjustments could potentially alleviate some of the price pressures faced by American consumers and businesses, while also offering similar relief to China.
The possibility of reduced tariffs holds particular interest for economists and trade experts, who see it as a potential stabilizing factor for global markets. A reduction could signal a shift toward more constructive engagement between the two economic giants, which could, in turn, encourage more stability and predictability in international trade.
As the world watches these developments unfold, the economic implications extend beyond U.S. and Chinese borders. The outcome of the talks in Geneva could set a precedent for how major economic powers manage trade disputes and find common ground amidst differing national priorities.
If successful, the talks could mark a turning point in U.S.-China trade relations, potentially ushering in a new era of cooperative economic engagement. However, skeptics remain cautious, noting that previous negotiations have often been fraught with challenges.
While the meeting is yet another step in a lengthy process of negotiation, both sides appear motivated to find solutions that will mitigate the negative impacts of the trade war. Should an agreement be reached, it could pave the way for reduced tension and increased economic collaboration moving forward.
In the days leading up to the Geneva meeting, analysts predict intense behind-the-scenes discussions as negotiators strive to reach a consensus that balances national interests with the demands of global trade. All eyes will remain on these high-stakes discussions, eagerly waiting to see if they yield the much-anticipated breakthrough in U.S.-China trade relations.
Trump's numerous critics and haters across the media sphere have attempted to spin a narrative that First Lady Melania Trump is leaning away from her husband.
But reports -- and common sense -- tell a different story, especially as President Trump was relentlessly prosecuted in multiple rounds of political lawfare, which some say has actually brought the couple closer together than ever before.
Melania Trump has reportedly spent more time with her husband than usual, and sources close to her say that even though she was "furious" about the Stormy Daniels situation, she feels her husband was unfairly treated by his political enemies.
The first lady has taken heat for being mostly away from the White House since Donald was reelected, but sources close to her say there's a very good reason for that.
One of those reasons is her deep bond with the couple's son, Barron Trump.
First Lady Trump understandably went into full protective mode, especially after assassins attempted to kill Mr. Trump on several occasions.
Reports noted:
As a result, part of her desire to spend more time at the Trump's New York City apartment is reportedly to try to ensure the safety of 19-year-old Barron. Melania also prioritized Barron during the first Trump administration, delaying her move to the White House so that he could finish up the school year in New York.
Melania Trump wasn't happy about the Stormy Daniels situation, according to Mary Jordan, a journalist at the Washington Post and author of The Art of Her Deal: The Untold Story of Melania Trump.
"When she found out years ago about Stormy Daniels, she was the most upset she’s been," MJordan told The Times. "She was furious and it was a very low period."]
While many of Trump's critics presumably hoped for the two to grow apart as a result of the case, the opposite happened.
Jordan added, "The trials and the cases in court have infuriated her and drawn her closer to Trump. She believes that he has been persecuted."
Melania Trump has gone on record as saying that her top priority is protecting her family, especially her young son, who is now in college.
Many in the media have desperately attempted to tell a different, darker story. But it's not catching on.
Clearly, Melania loves her husband, her son, and the Trump family, and that's not going to change anytime soon.
Any reasonable person can understand why she does what she does.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – After teasing that his next message on Truth Social would be "one of the most important and impactful I have ever issued," President Donald Trump on Sunday announced he would sign an executive order Monday morning designed to cut prescription drug and pharmaceutical prices "almost immediately, by 30% to 80%."
"For many years the World has wondered why Prescription Drugs and Pharmaceuticals in the United States States of America were SO MUCH HIGHER IN PRICE THAN THEY WERE IN ANY OTHER NATION, SOMETIMES BEING FIVE TO TEN TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE SAME DRUG, MANUFACTURED IN THE EXACT SAME LABORATORY OR PLANT, BY THE SAME COMPANY???" Trump began, having made people wait nearly four hours for his post.
"It was always difficult to explain and very embarrassing because, in fact, there was no correct or rightful answer. The Pharmaceutical/Drug Companies would say, for years, that it was Research and Development Costs, and that all of these costs were, and would be, for no reason whatsoever, borne by the 'suckers' of America, ALONE.
"Campaign Contributions can do wonders, but not with me, and not with the Republican Party. We are going to do the right thing, something that the Democrats have fought for many years.
"Therefore, I am pleased to announce that Tomorrow morning, in the White House, at 9:00 A.M., I will be signing one of the most consequential Executive Orders in our Country's history. Prescription Drug and Pharmaceutical prices will be REDUCED, almost immediately, by 30% to 80%.
"They will rise throughout the World in order to equalize and, for the first time in many years, bring FAIRNESS TO AMERICA! I will be instituting a MOST FAVORED NATION'S POLICY whereby the United States will pay the same price as the Nation that pays the lowest price anywhere in the World.
"Our Country will finally be treated fairly, and our citizens Healthcare Costs will be reduced by numbers never even thought of before. Additionally, on top of everything else, the United States will save TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"