President Donald Trump has dropped a bombshell with his latest push for “tiny cars” in America, aiming to steer the nation toward cheaper wheels.
Trump’s recent announcement to greenlight domestic production of these compact vehicles comes amid his ongoing battle against what he calls a Democratic “hoax” on affordability, while rolling out plans to ease household expenses, the Washington Examiner reported.
Earlier this week, during an Oval Office meeting with U.S. auto executives, Trump pointed to the pint-sized cars popular in Asian markets like Japan and South Korea as a model for American innovation.
He reminisced about the charm of the old Volkswagen Beetle, suggesting these modern equivalents could win over American drivers if given the chance.
“If you go to Japan, where I just left, if you go to South Korea, Malaysia, and other countries, they have a very small car, sort of like the Beetle used to be with Volkswagen,” Trump said during the Oval Office event.
With a nostalgic nod, he’s betting on cute and compact to disrupt a market bogged down by oversized, overpriced options—though one wonders if Americans, hooked on their hulking SUVs, will bite.
By Friday, Trump took to Truth Social with a rallying cry for manufacturers to jumpstart production of these budget-friendly rides without delay.
“Manufacturers have long wanted to do this, just like they are so successfully built in other countries. They can be propelled by gasoline, electric, or hybrid,” Trump posted, adding, “These cars of the very near future are inexpensive, safe, fuel efficient and, quite simply, AMAZING!!!”
His enthusiasm is infectious, but it’s hard to ignore the irony of championing affordability while dismissing the very concept as a progressive fabrication—still, if these cars deliver on price, who’s complaining?
Trump also claimed he’s directed officials to fast-track approvals, ensuring these small wonders hit U.S. roads sooner rather than later.
Yet, automotive experts caution that size comes with serious hurdles, particularly when it comes to meeting stringent U.S. crash safety standards.
Sam Abuelsamid, vice president of market research at Telemetry, noted that these vehicles, likely inspired by Japan’s “kei” cars, often fall short of American requirements for occupant protection due to their limited “crush space.”
Abuelsamid explained that while kei cars fit Japan’s urban landscape with strict parking rules, adapting them for the U.S. market is no small feat.
If manufacturers can crack the code on safety without inflating costs, they’re free to roll out these micro-machines—but that’s a mighty big “if” in a country obsessed with bigger-is-better.
Trump’s push for tiny cars might just be the shake-up needed to challenge bloated vehicle prices, even if it means navigating a regulatory maze tighter than a Tokyo parking spot.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
PALM BEACH, Florida – As JPMorgan Chase Bank is under investigation by the state of Florida for alleged coordination with the Biden Department of Justice and Operation Arctic Frost, the chairman of the company is admitting to debanking certain customers, but says it has nothing to do with their political or religious affiliations.
"We do debank them," said JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon who appeared on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel.
"People have to grow up here and stop making up things and stuff like that. I can't talk about an individual account.
"We do not debank people for religious or political affiliations. We do debank them. They have religious and political affiliations. We debank people who are Democrats, we debank people who are Republicans, we debank religious folks. Never was that for that reason."Dimon was responding to comments last month from Trump Media CEO Devin Nunes who said his company was debanked by JPMorgan Chase.
"When the Arctic Frost went after our bank records at Trump Media, that's inexplicable because we didn't exist," Nunes told Bartiromo on Nov. 9. "So what reason did they have to go after us? And I've seen Jamie Dimon and others at JPMorgan say this over and over again that they don't debank people for political reasons. Well, then why the hell did you debank Trump Media?"
Dimon on Sunday explained: "I don't like debanking people. We live under very strict rules and regulations and requirements. And to protect the country and we have to report things to the government. We're required to report things to the government. I can't even tell you when we do it."
He said he wants to change the rules by which banks are currently bound.
"I actually applaud the Trump administration which is tying to say the debanking's bad, and let's change the rules. Well, damn it, I've been asking to change the rules now for 15 years. So change the rules!" Dimon exclaimed.
"And that's why a lot of this stuff takes place. It is really customer unfriendly. We're debanking people 'cause of suspected things or negative media or all of these various things."
He continued: "We don't give information to the government just because they ask. We're subpoenaed. We're required by court to give it to the government. And I've been following subpoenas with this administration, the last administration, the administration before that and the one before that. And I don't agree with a lot of it. The government does a lot of things that get angry with banks."
"Let's just take a deep breath and fix the problems as opposed to blame someone who's put in that position."
"I would tell the government, 'If we see something that might possibly be bad, we'll report it to you, and you decide.' Why do we have to decide? That's the position we're put in."
When asked if corporate America was being asked to do the government's dirty work, Dimon replied: "Democratic, Republican governments have come after us both. So let's not act like this is just one side doing this."
"This has been going for a long time. And we should stop militarizing the government in that kind of way."
Last month, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced the launch of an official investigation into JPMorgan Chase Bank in connection with Operation Arctic Frost, as the Biden administration sought phone records of political enemies.
"It's come to our attention that JPMorgan debanked Trump Media Group, a Florida-based company, right before the business went public," Uthmeier said. "This is a crucial time for any company, a time where you cannot afford to lose your bank."
Uthmeier also claimed JPMorgan sought large amounts of information from Trump Media unrelated to its business practices and may have shared sensitive data with Biden's DOJ without probable cause.
"This is wrong. We will not tolerate it, and we will hold them accountable," he added.
"Here in Florida, we've passed legislation to protect our consumers from wrongful debanking, and we will stand by our consumers," he said.
As WorldNetDaily reported in January, Congress is now investigating the debanking of Americans who hold conservative political views.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky, wondered at the time: "Are these bank examiners with a wink and a nod saying don't let this person bank at your bank?"
Hold onto your stethoscopes, folks—House Republicans are rolling out a bold new plan to give Obamacare a serious makeover.
Under the leadership of Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a fresh piece of legislation dubbed "The More Affordable Care Act" aims to pare down key components of the Affordable Care Act while introducing personal health savings accounts branded as "Trump Health Freedom Accounts," alongside state-driven flexibility to tackle rising premiums.
Let’s start at the beginning: Pfluger is set to file this bill on Monday, signaling a significant push from the GOP to address healthcare woes.
Under this proposal, states could opt out of major Obamacare mandates as long as they protect high-risk pools from premium spikes.
These so-called "waiver states" would have the freedom to manage their own healthcare exchanges or even hand the reins to private companies.
It’s a sharp pivot from federal overreach, offering a lifeline to regions stuck with limited, often pricey, federal options.
Here’s where it gets interesting: federal subsidies that currently cut insurance costs would be funneled into personal "Trump Health Freedom Accounts" for eligible folks in waiver states.
Think of it as a healthcare piggy bank, giving families direct control over their dollars instead of feeding a bureaucratic black hole.
And in a nod to choice, the bill lets Americans shop for plans across state lines, ensuring waiver state programs are open to out-of-state buyers.
This legislative jab comes just as enhanced Obamacare subsidies, beefed up during the COVID-19 crisis, are poised to expire by year’s end, potentially leaving millions facing a brutal "price cliff."
Most GOP lawmakers are digging in their heels against extending these pandemic-era boosts, arguing they’ve jacked up overall health costs, while Democrats and a few moderate Republicans push to keep them for affordability’s sake.
House GOP leaders, including Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., are piecing together a broader healthcare package that might see a vote before the month wraps up.
Whether Pfluger’s bill makes the cut for that package remains up in the air, though his clout within the party suggests it’ll get a serious look, with sources predicting strong interest from House Republicans.
Pfluger himself isn’t mincing words, telling Fox News Digital, "By establishing Health Freedom Accounts, we’re putting healthcare decisions back where they belong: in the hands of American families, not Washington bureaucrats."
That’s a refreshing take—why should faceless pencil-pushers dictate your doctor visits when you could steer the ship with your own hard-earned funds? Echoing this, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who’s already floated a similar bill in the Senate, told Fox News Digital, "We don’t have to replace Obamacare, we keep exchanges, we keep protections for preexisting conditions – but we can add options for families, allowing them to shop across state lines, increasing transparency in health care, and giving any financial support to them directly through HSA-style Trump Health Freedom Accounts, so families can choose the care that fits their needs." Now, if only the left could stop clutching their one-size-fits-all playbook long enough to consider competition as a cure for bloated costs.
President Donald Trump is swinging the wrecking ball of progress straight into the heart of the White House with a jaw-dropping ballroom project.
Fox News reported that Trump has greenlit a massive renovation, complete with a privately funded $300 million ballroom addition, overseen by a newly appointed architectural firm, to host grand state visits and gatherings.
Back in July, when this ambitious plan was first unveiled, the estimated cost sat at a hefty $200 million, but that figure has since ballooned to $300 million.
Fast forward to October, and the project roared to life with heavy machinery tearing into the historic East Wing, a sight that both stuns and signals a new era for the presidential estate.
By late October, excavators were spotted clearing rubble, a clear sign that there’s no turning back on this monumental overhaul of a cherished national symbol.
While some may wince at the loss of history, the White House insists this addition has been long in the making, promising a venue worthy of America’s global stature.
On Thursday, Trump tapped Shalom Baranes Associates, a respected Washington, D.C.-based firm, to steer the design of this grand ballroom, marking a pivotal shift in the project’s development.
Originally, McCrery Architects led the charge on the design, and they’ll stay on as consultants, ensuring continuity as the vision takes shape.
White House spokesperson Davis Ingle couldn’t contain the excitement, declaring, “As we begin to transition into the next stage of development on the White House Ballroom, the Administration is excited to share that the highly talented Shalom Baranes has joined the team of experts to carry out President Trump’s vision.”
Ingle also praised the new architect’s credentials, stating, “Shalom is an accomplished architect whose work has shaped the architectural identity of our nation’s capital for decades and his experience will be a great asset to the completion of this project.”
While Ingle’s enthusiasm paints a rosy picture, let’s be real—redefining the White House isn’t just about pretty blueprints; it’s about ensuring this space reflects American strength, not just another overpriced progressive pet project.
President Trump himself chimed in with a touch of humor, admitting, “I wouldn't say my wife is thrilled.”
He added, “She hears pile drivers in the background all day, all night.”
One can only imagine the First Lady’s patience wearing thin with the constant clamor, but if this ballroom turns out as promised, it might just be worth the headache—let’s hope it’s not another government boondoggle dressed up as innovation.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem just dropped a bombshell that’s reshaping America’s borders.
The Daily Caller reported that on Thursday, Noem unveiled a bold expansion of travel restrictions, barring entry from more than 30 countries as part of the Trump administration’s push to safeguard national security and public safety.
Earlier this year, in June, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation restricting entry from a dozen nations, including Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, and Somalia, citing inadequate security protocols and heightened terrorism risks in those regions.
Other countries on that initial list, such as Haiti, Yemen, and Sudan, were flagged for similar concerns about unstable governance and vetting challenges.
The administration argued these measures were necessary to pressure foreign governments into stepping up their cooperation on security matters, ensuring travelers don’t pose a threat to American soil.
Fast forward to Noem’s latest announcement, and the list of restricted countries has ballooned to over 30, though she kept the precise figure under wraps.
“I won’t be specific on the number, but it’s over 30. And the President is continuing to evaluate countries,” Noem told host Laura Ingraham on “The Ingraham Angle.”
Well, that’s a lot of nations on the no-fly list, and while clarity is lacking, it’s clear the administration isn’t playing around when it comes to perceived risks—though some might wonder if blanket bans are the sharpest tool in the shed.
Noem didn’t mince words when explaining the rationale, pointing to governance issues in the affected countries as a core concern.
“Listen, if they don’t have a stable government there, if they don’t have a country that can sustain itself and tell us who those individuals are and help us vet them, why should we allow people from that country to come here to the United States?” she pressed on “The Ingraham Angle.”
Her point hits a nerve—why take chances on unverified travelers when the stakes are so high?—yet critics might argue this approach risks painting entire populations with too broad a brush.
The Trump administration doubled down on the urgency of these restrictions by highlighting recent violent incidents tied to individuals from high-risk areas.
One case involved Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an unauthorized migrant who entered during the prior administration and was later arrested for attacking a pro-Israel demonstration in Boulder, Colorado.
Another chilling event occurred less than two weeks before that, when 31-year-old Elias Rodriguez fatally shot two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C., shouting political slogans as he was apprehended—incidents like these fuel the administration’s argument for tighter borders, though they also stoke heated debates about fairness and effectiveness.
Senate Democrats are throwing down the gauntlet against Education Secretary Linda McMahon over a bold plan to overhaul the Department of Education, as The Hill reports.
At the heart of this showdown is a controversial announcement from Nov. 18, when the department revealed plans to shift major responsibilities to other federal agencies, a move Democrats are calling unlawful and a direct attack on public education.
Let’s rewind to the starting line: on Nov. 18, the Education Department dropped a bombshell, stating it would transfer core functions -- think over half of federal funds for K-12 programs and billions for higher education -- to agencies like Labor, Interior, State, and Health and Human Services.
The department framed this as a push to “return education to the states” and cut through bureaucratic red tape, a classic conservative goal that sounds noble on paper. But is this just a slick way to sidestep Congress and chip away at a federal agency some on the right have long wanted to axe?
Fast forward to Thursday, when a coalition of Senate Democrats, led by heavyweights like Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), fired off a scathing letter to McMahon. They didn’t mince words, labeling the transfers “illegal” and accusing her of undermining the very foundation of public education.
Joined by 32 other senators, including Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the group argued that Congress explicitly tasked the Education Department with these duties, not a patchwork of other agencies unprepared for the burden. It’s a fair point -- shouldn’t such a seismic shift at least get a nod from lawmakers?
The Democrats’ letter pulls no punches, warning that McMahon’s plan creates “even more bureaucracy that states, school districts, and educational institutions across America will have to expend time and resources navigating at the expense of students and families.” If the goal was to streamline, this sounds more like a detour into a bureaucratic swamp.
They also pointed out a glaring hole: the agencies slated to take on these massive education funds -- like billions in grants and programs -- haven’t offered a shred of detail on how they’ll manage it. Are we supposed to just trust that the Department of Interior is ready to tackle Title I funding?
Adding fuel to the fire, the senators accused the administration of rushing these changes for political points, consequences be damned. They urged McMahon to hit the brakes and refocus on actually supporting schools and students, not dismantling the system.
Warren didn’t stop at signing the letter -- she took her fight public with a blistering op-ed in USA Today on Monday, calling for McMahon’s resignation. In it, she wrote, “When the secretary is working to make class sizes bigger, take away aides for kids with special needs, leave college students at the mercy of financial predators, and make the whole department nonfunctional, it’s time for new leadership.” Ouch -- that’s not just a critique, it’s intended to be a knockout punch.
Warren’s words reflect a broader frustration among progressives who see this restructuring as part of a larger agenda to hollow out federal oversight of education. From a conservative lens, though, isn’t there something to be said for shaking up a system that’s often criticized as bloated and out of touch?
Still, the senators’ letter raises a thorny issue about process -- these transfers are being framed as interagency agreements, which are technically legal, but Democrats argue they’re not meant for effectively shuttering an agency. If the endgame is to put the Education Secretary “out of a job,” as they claim, shouldn’t that be a debate for Congress, not a backdoor deal?
This isn’t a new fight -- President Trump has been upfront about wanting to scale back or eliminate the Education Department, a stance cemented by an executive order in March to dismantle it. He’s promised to protect key programs like Pell Grants and funding for students with disabilities, but the broader goal of taking “all lawful steps to shut down the department” looms large.
From a right-of-center view, returning control to states could empower local communities to tailor education without federal overreach -- a principle many conservatives champion. Yet, even sympathizers might wonder if this scattershot approach risks leaving students and schools in the lurch during the transition.
As this battle unfolds, The Hill has reached out to the Education Department for a response, but the silence so far speaks volumes. For now, McMahon faces a fired-up opposition determined to stop what they see as a reckless teardown of public education -- and conservatives may need to brace for a fight over whether this reform is genius or just plain chaos.
Controversy is swirling around Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Republican senators are caught between frustration and loyalty to President Donald Trump.
From mishandling sensitive information to questionable military decisions, Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon has sparked dissatisfaction among GOP lawmakers, though they’re quick to note that his fate ultimately rests with the president, as The Hill reports.
Let’s rewind to the start: Hegseth’s confirmation as secretary of Defense was a contentious battle, with past allegations of financial mismanagement and excessive drinking at nonprofits he led raising eyebrows. Despite this, he secured the role with a decisive vote from Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
Fast forward to a bombshell incident involving Hegseth sharing sensitive military data on Signal, a commercial app, in a chat that accidentally included a journalist. A Pentagon inspector general report confirmed this lapse, with Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island slamming it as showing “reckless disregard for the safety of American servicemembers.” That’s a polite way of saying it’s a national security blunder of epic proportions.
Then there’s the Sept. 2 missile strike in the Caribbean, in which a follow-up attack targeted survivors of a suspected Venezuelan drug boat. The White House confirmed the strike happened, though senior officials and Navy Adm. Frank Bradley insist Hegseth didn’t directly order the killing of survivors. Still, his initial dismissal of a Washington Post report as “fake news” -- only for it to be verified a day later -- hasn’t helped his credibility.
Sen. Thom Tillis didn’t mince words on this flip-flop, stating, “Just have the information and don’t undermine your credibility by making a snap statement that proves to be either false or inadequate.” Ouch -- when a key supporter calls you out for lacking precision as the nation’s defense chief, it’s time to rethink your media strategy.
Adding fuel to the fire, Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa described Hegseth’s leadership as “bumpy,” while withholding final judgment on the missile strike until more evidence emerges. She noted that military brass, including the Joint Chiefs chair, deemed the strike justified in a classified briefing. But that hesitation speaks volumes about the unease in GOP ranks.
Democrats aren’t holding back either, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer demanding Hegseth release tapes of the strike and testify publicly. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky echoed the call for transparency, pushing for video footage to be shown to the American public. When both sides agree on something, you know the pressure’s on.
Then there’s the Ukraine aid debacle earlier this year, in which Hegseth reportedly halted military shipments without full White House backing. A Reuters report highlighted the surprise this caused, and Tillis branded the move “amateurish.” For a party focused on strong national defense, that’s not a compliment.
Despite the mounting controversies, many Republican senators are treading carefully to avoid clashing with President Trump, who championed Hegseth from the start. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota dodged direct questions about confidence in Hegseth, instead crediting Trump’s broader policies for making the country safer. It’s a classic sidestep -- support the boss, not the baggage.
An anonymous GOP senator admitted there’s “a lot of frustration” within the party over Hegseth’s leadership, though defenders point to increased military recruitment as a win. Even so, moves like renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War have rubbed some lawmakers the wrong way. Boldness is one thing; recklessness is another.
Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota summed up the GOP’s hands-off stance, saying, “It’s really a question for the president.” Translation: we’re not touching this hot potato -- let Trump decide. It’s loyalty over criticism, even when the missteps pile up.
Critics like Sen. Reed argue that Hegseth’s Signal messaging app mishap could have endangered U.S. personnel and jeopardized missions, a charge that’s hard to dismiss in a role that demands utmost caution. Meanwhile, Thune emphasized that the Senate Armed Services Committee will probe whether the missile strike broke any rules or international law. The clock is ticking for answers.
So where does this leave Hegseth? GOP senators are clearly uneasy -- some openly, others behind closed doors—but they’re deferring to Trump’s judgment rather than taking a stand. It’s a tightrope walk between principle and political allegiance, and one that leaves the Pentagon’s leadership in a precarious spot.
At the end of the day, Hegseth’s tenure is a lightning rod for debate, from operational blunders to policy disputes. While conservatives may appreciate his focus on a stronger military, the question remains whether these controversies outweigh the gains. Only time -- and Trump -- will tell if he stays or goes.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A student in a battle with a transgender teaching assistant at the University of Oklahoma has won.
The school has agreed to discard the TA's failing grade on an assignment done by the student.
The Daily Mail said student Samantha Fulnecky, a psychology student, forced the university "into stunning U-turn."
She got a zero grade on the assignment for citing the Bible in the opinion-based project.
She said, in an interview with the Oklahoman, that the assignment will have no effect on her class average, a result that followed her appeal to the school about the situation.
She charged she was targeted by religious discrimination.
School officials then confirmed there is "no academic harm to the student."
The controversy was over the teaching assistant's insistence that students parrot leftist ideologies about transgenderism.
Fulnecky had been ordered to respond with her opinions about another article on society's "gender expectations."
She emphasized the biblical teaching that there are two genders, calling the idea that there are more "demonic."
"Fulnecky noted the Bible supported her belief that eliminating gender would prove to be 'detrimental' because it would put humans 'farther from God's original plan,'" the report said.
The teaching assistant, Mel Curth, claimed to be offended by Fulnecky's opinions, and charged that in an opinion piece, Fulnecky "should have cited 'empirical evidence,'" the report said.
Curth punished Fulnecky with a score of zero out of 25 points.
Fulnecky said, "To be what I think is clearly discriminated against for my beliefs and using freedom of speech, and especially for my religious beliefs, I think that's just absurd."
The governor called for an investigation, because the result was "deeply concerning."
Fulnecky was awarded a Citation of Recognition from the Oklahoma House of Representatives' 98th District for "speaking from a foundation of truth," Rep. Gabe Woolley announced.
WND reported when Woolley confirmed he was getting vicious and lethal threats after defending Fulnecky.
Woolley shared the audio of one menacing message, stating: "Hi, this is a message for Rep. Gabe Woolley. Could you please pass this message on to him? Tell him to put a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger for all of our sakes. Thank you. Bye."
Curth, a man pretending to be a woman, had openly denigrated the student's references to the Bible and faith, and instead insisted she should adopt the teacher's ideologies. The teacher has since been removed from the classroom, as WorldNetDaily reported.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Chuck Schumer-led Democrats in Congress, following up on their failed weeks-long shutdown of the U.S. government to try to force taxpayers to pay billions of dollars for Obamacare subsidies, have created a new plan to accomplish their goal.
But in reality the "designed to fail" agenda is all about messaging, allowing Democrats to claim Republicans don't want to extend those taxpayer subsidies.
In fact, they don't.
But the problem was created by Democrats alone, and the GOP doesn't feel an urgent need to bail them out.
The issue is that Democrats in the majority then created subsidies, paid for by taxpayers, to Obamacare premiums during the COVID-19 panic. The Democrats scheduled them to expire at the end of this month.
The result, as they are not the majority now and cannot simply extend their largesse, is that those forced into the Obamacare program are facing huge premium increases.
The Schumer Shutdown, which ended only just ended, was about forcing the GOP to raid taxpayers' pockets for some $1.5 trillion for those subsidies. Democrats failed, but now a new report at the Washington Examiner explains their latest.
They have plans to force a vote next week on their idea of extending those expensive subsidies, draining for taxpayers, for three years.
They are pushing the plan even while opposing bipartisan suggestions to address the problem.
The report said that has left Republicans charging the Democrats are in an "unserious attempt to avert skyrocketing out-of-pocket premiums."
What it would do, the report said is, "offer Democrats their latest healthcare messaging opportunity ahead of the 2026 midterm elections."
"It remained unclear whether Republicans, who said Democrats settled on a measure designed to fail, would counterprogram and offer an alternative bill to address health insurance costs," the report explained.
Schumer claimed that Republicans have only one path to work to avoid premium increases, support his agenda.
Republicans have been willing to work on compromise legislation, but they want additional abortion limits, and Democrats have flatly refused to consider that.
GOP members already have proposed shorter extensions, and just minutes before Schumer's announcement, House centrists proposal a bipartisan one-year deal.
"Opting for a more partisan route breathed new fire into Republican accusations that Democrats were insincere about blunting rising costs for most of the 24 million marketplace recipients who are forecasted to leave millions without the ability to afford insurance," the report said.
Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said, "This is not an offer that they're trying to get Republican buy-in at all. That's not it. This is complete messaging on their part."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A pro-abortion activist acting as a federal judge has ruled, again, that American taxpayers must keep giving money to help the profit-loss margin for Planned Parenthood businesses, and the ruling already is facing a challenge.
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that cited the "sweeping order" from Indira Talwani, who ruled "once again" to block Congress from setting spending priorities, and removing Planned Parenthood as a recipient of federal Medicaid dollars.
Talwani, whose earlier pro-abortion funding ruling was struck down on appeal, said in a new 45-page claim that 22 states and the District of Columbia deserve an injunction that requires the continued tax funding of abortionists, even though Congress decided otherwise.
The ACLJ, which has been participating in the litigation, explained, "Congress has the unquestioned constitutional authority to decide how federal dollars are allocated. The judiciary does not get to override those decisions or insulate favored organizations from the consequences of federal policy. Especially not when the organization at issue is the nation's largest abortion provider."
The legal team said it would file a court briefing as soon as possible, as "Congress' spending authority and the integrity of our constitutional structure must be defended."
The spending limit is included in Section 71113 of the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act.
"If the judge's name sounds familiar, it should. This is the same judge who, just months ago, issued two extraordinarily broad injunctions in favor of Planned Parenthood – first shielding a subset of affiliates from Congress' defunding statute, and then expanding her order to cover every Planned Parenthood affiliate nationwide," the ACLJ documented.
It filed briefs at that time "explaining why Congress acted well within its constitutional authority when it chose to restrict federal Medicaid funds from going to organizations that perform elective abortions. We warned then that the district court's reasoning was dangerously flawed and would, if left uncorrected, upend Congress' control of federal spending."
At that time the 1st U.S. Circuit Court intervened, and canceled Talwani's pro-abortion activism in the case.
Now the abortion advocates have claimed, in new arguments, that Section 71113 is "vague."
Talwani based her claims, the ACLJ explained, on the Spending Clause.
"Under Supreme Court precedent, when Congress imposes conditions on federal funding, it must speak with sufficient clarity so states may knowingly accept the terms. According to the district court, Section 71113 did not meet that standard. The judge concluded that states lacked clarity on who qualifies as a 'prohibited entity,' how to assess multistate Medicaid expenditures, and what it means for a provider to be 'primarily engaged' in certain reproductive health services," the ACLJ said.
The fight is over tax funding for abortionists, and Planned Parenthood's repeated claim that it has a constitutional right to demand money from taxpayers.
"Congress' intent was unmistakable: Federal Medicaid dollars should not subsidize entities that perform abortions outside the narrow bounds of the Hyde Amendment. That condition is not in any way ambiguous; it is clear," the ACLJ said.
The Washington Examiner said Talwani's new order came "despite a federal appeals court lifting her previous halt on the law in a different lawsuit."
The report explained, "Talwani paused her order for seven days to allow for appeal, meaning the provision will not be blocked until that time has passed. She also stood firm on her rationale for why she granted the injunction in the case brought by Planned Parenthood, which is currently paused by a federal appeals court."