This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A ruling from U.S. Magistrate Nancy Joseph in Wisconsin has rejected Judge Hannah Dugan's claim for absolute immunity for her actions in stopping her own court hearing, diverting ICE agents away from the adjacent hallway, sending them on an errand and then escorting a criminal illegal alien out of the courthouse through a nonpublic jury door.
The decision from the case that charges Dugan with federal crimes said, "Judges are not immune from criminal prosecution for acts wholly outside their official roles as judges."
She explains, "The indictment alleges Dugan violated two federal statutes, 18U.S.C. §§ 1071 and 1505, and cites the respective statutory language for both. Whether Dugan violated these statutes as the government accuses, or whether she was merely performing her judicial duties as Dugan asserts, these are questions for a jury that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
"I recommend Dugan's motion to dismiss on Tenth Amendment grounds be denied."
Further, the ruling found Dugan's attempt to obtain the dismissal of her indictment on constitutional avoidance grounds is "misplaced."
"It is well-established and undisputed that judges have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts. This, however, is not a civil case. And review of the case law does not show an extension of this established doctrine to the criminal context."
Applying established principles of immunity to Dugan's case, the ruling determined: "Does judicial immunity shield Dugan from prosecution because the indictment alleges she violated federal criminal law while performing judicial duties? The answer is no. …There is no firmly established absolute judicial immunity barring criminal prosecution of judges for judicial acts."
Dugan had argued as a state court judge acting within the scope of her official duties, prosecution is barred, she also is protected by the Tenth Amendment and the canon of constitutional avoidance.
She wrongly cited the Supreme Court's ruling granted President Donald Trump differing levels of immunity based on official actions.
"While Dugan asserts that Trump simply extended to the president the same immunity from prosecution that judges already have, this argument makes a leap too far. Trump says nothing about criminal immunity for judicial acts."
A grand jury accused Dugan of knowingly concealing a person for whose arrest a warrant and process had been issued, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071. She is charged in Count Two with obstruction of the United States Department of Homeland Security's removal proceedings, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
The episode happened on April 18, when, according to the records, "Dugan knowingly concealed E.F.R., a person for whose arrest a warrant and process had been issued under the provisions of the law of the United States, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of E.F.R., after notice and knowledge of the fact that a warrant and process had been issued for the apprehension of E.F.R., in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071; Count Two On or about April 18, 2025, Dugan did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper administration of the law under which a pending proceeding was being had before a department and agency of the United States, namely the administrative arrest of E.F.R. for purposes of removal proceedings conducted by the United States Department of Homeland Security, by committing affirmative acts to assist E.F.R. to evade arrest, including: a) confronting members of a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Task Force and falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.; b) upon learning that they had an administrative warrant for E.F.R.'s arrest, directing all identified members of the ICE Task Force to leave…"
WND reported when a video showed Dugan's actions, sending two federal agents waiting to take an illegal into custody packing.
A report at the Gateway Pundit described how the video shows Dugan "angrily confronting ICE agents in the courthouse."
Dugan later was arrested by the FBI for obstructing federal law enforcement.
She then claimed that everything she did was part of her judicial duty, so she is totally immune to any prosecution.
Dugan has been relieved of her duties and is facing trial.
WND previously has reported Dugan could face sentencing of up to six years in jail and $350,000 in fines if convicted.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The evidence has been plain since they were mandated by so many government agencies and private corporations during the reign of the COVID-19 pandemic: those mRNA shots could cause major heart troubles, especially in young men, by triggering myocarditis and pericarditis.
Now the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has updated the safety labeling on all mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to warn those who take them to beware.
COVID erupted, according to most measured assessments, from a Wuhan, Chinese, lab experimenting on horrific bat viruses late in 2019. It circled the globe and millions died.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's Health and Human Services secretary, has charged that ex-White House coronavirus adviser Anthony Fauci probably played a large role in the creation of the infection, and has called for a commission to investigate its origins.
Kennedy, in an interview with talk show host Tucker Carlson, said Fauci, as chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, funded potentially dangerous research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
Asked why Joe Biden issued a pre-emptive pardon to Fauci in his last day in office, Kennedy said, "I would be speculating, but I think that he had a lot of liability on creating coronavirus. He was funding precisely that research, and he was giving them the technology."
The FDA, in fact, now announced it has required and approved "updates" to the prescribing information for mRNA shots from Pfizer and Moderna.
The warnings are "to include new safety information about the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines."
Specifically, FDA has required each manufacturer to update the warning about the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis to include information about … "the estimated unadjusted incidence of myocarditis and/or pericarditis following administration of the 2023-2024 Formula of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and … the results of a study that collected information on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cardiac MRI) in people who developed myocarditis after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine."
A report at the Gateway Pundit said the development follows "months of mounting pressure over transparency and accountability regarding the true risks of these experimental injections."
It said, "The update stems from new studies and data showing persistent cardiac abnormalities months after vaccination—especially among males aged 12 to 24."
Dr. Vinay Prasad of the Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research detailed "how FDA data reveals a myocarditis rate of 27 per million in young men—a figure that experts say is significantly underreported due to passive surveillance methods and political suppression of adverse event reports," the report said.
"More troubling, Dr. Prasad cited late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on cardiac MRIs as proof of sustained, potentially irreversible myocardial injury. According to Prasad, in one FDA-funded study, 60% of patients who suffered post-vaccine myocarditis still showed signs of LGE five months later."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A review by the CIA of a scheme by John Brennan, James Comey and others in the Barack Obama administration found the anti-Trump activists tried to use lies in official government assessments to "get" then-candidate and now-President Donald Trump.
A newly released eight-page review, unleashed by CIA director John Ratcliffe, puts in the crosshairs the government's December 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment about Russia and the just-finished presidential election.
The new report, ordered by Ratcliffe and done by the CIA's Directorate of Analysis, found the "decision by agency heads to include the Steele Dossier in the ICA ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment."
The dossier, created by ex-British agent Christopher Steele, made wild and unsubstantiated allegations about Trump and his, or his campaign's links to Russia. It claimed that Vladimir Putin was interfering to help Trump win the election, and more.
Only the claims all were fabrications.
The review "pointed the finger at Brennan as well as at the leadership of the FBI at the time," James Comey.
Ratcliffe confirmed that government document was done "through an atypical & corrupt process under the politically charged environments" imposed by Brennan and Comey.
A report at Just the News pointed out that Steele's complaints about Trump were "baseless."
Even so ,CIA and FBI chiefs at the time expressed "high confidence" that Putin had "aspired" to help Trump win.
The dossier, in fact, was funded by payments made through a series of companies, legal teams and individuals by Hillary Clinton's failed campaign for president at the time. In fact, her campaign later was fined for incorrectly reporting the cash turned over for the work of assembling the dossier.
"The procedural anomalies that characterized the ICA's development had a direct impact on the tradecraft applied to its most contentious finding. With analysts operating under severe time constraints, limited information sharing, and heightened senior-level scrutiny, several aspects of tradecraft rigor were compromised—particularly in supporting the judgment that Putin 'aspired' to help Trump win," the new report affirms.
"The DA Review identified multiple specific concerns, including: a higher confidence level than was justified; insufficient exploration of alternative scenarios; lack of transparency on source uncertainty; uneven argumentation; and the inclusion of unsubstantiated Steele Dossier material," it said.
The review revealed that "ICA authors and multiple senior CIA managers – including the two senior leaders of the CIA mission center responsible for Russia— strongly opposed including the Dossier, asserting that it did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards.":
Some CIA officials even had warned using the lies would risk "the credibility of the entire paper," Just the News reported.
"Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness. When confronted with specific flaws in the Dossier by the two mission center leaders—one with extensive operational experience and the other with a strong analytic background – he appeared more swayed by the Dossier's general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns."
Their report at the time "implicitly elevated unsubstantiated claims to the status of credible supporting evidence, compromising the analytical integrity of the judgment," the new report said.
Just the News explained, "CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis tweeted Tuesday that newly-declassified documents 'show how Brennan and Comey personally intervened to insert the Steele dossier's lies into intelligence analysis. We must have zero tolerance for the weaponization of intelligence.'"
The House Intelligence Committee concluded in 2018, "The majority of the Intelligence Community Assessment judgments on Russia's election activities employed proper analytic tradecraft" but the "judgments on Putin's strategic intentions did not."
In fact, that report found "significant intelligence tradecraft failings" that were evident in the claims.
"A two-year investigation by Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller 'did not establish' any criminal Trump-Russia collusion," Just the News said.
Later, DOJ special counsel John Durham concluded, "neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."
In fact, some operatives had wanted a review of Clinton's actions, and claims she "approved a plan concerning Trump and Russia" in order to distract the public from her own scandals.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," a massive document calling for changes to implement some of his agenda items, was approved in the U.S. Senate when Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaker in the 51-50 vote.
And while it addressed the spending, or cutting, of hundreds of billions of dollars of Americans' tax dollars, there's one key inclusion that is disrupting the longstanding Democrat agenda to fund abortions.
That issue was one of the key planks of Joe Biden's tenure on the White House, as he promoted abortion for all, anyway, anytime, all around the globe.
But the new plan contains a provision to cut off federal tax funding for abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood.
National Right to Life praised the move, which would block tax dollars from going to corporations that do or promote abortion.
"This vote is a monumental step forward for unborn children and their mothers. We thank every pro-life senator who stood firm in defense of innocent human life and voted to direct federal tax dollars away from the abortion industry," said Carol Tobias, president.
"We are especially grateful to Senate leadership for ensuring this life-saving provision remained intact throughout the legislative process. We thank Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Majority Whip John Barrasso and Chief Deputy Whip Mike Crapo for their leadership on this issue. Their resolve reflects the will of millions of Americans who do not want their hard-earned tax dollars used to subsidize the abortion industry. Women deserve compassionate care that supports both mother and child. This bill is a strong affirmation that we can and must build a culture that supports mother and child and rejects abortion."
Marjorie Dannenfelser, chief of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, added, "Today, Congress took a major step toward ending the forced taxpayer funding of the Big Abortion industry — a crucial victory in the fight against abortion, America's leading cause of death, and an industry that endangers women and girls.
"Women deserve real health care options like community health centers that outnumber Planned Parenthood 15 to 1 and provide far more comprehensive, life-affirming care. There's no justification for forcing taxpayers to bankroll a scandal-ridden industry that prioritizes abortion, gender transitions, and partisan politics over prenatal care, cancer screenings, and other legitimate services, which continue to decline."
The Supreme Court ruled last week that states are also allowed to defund the abortion industry players.
Congressional Republicans say the plan actually reduces the deficit, despite Democrat complaints, because it's based on extending current policy, and the White House says economic growth will offset expenses.
The core of the plan extends and makes permanent the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from Trump's first term. If those are not continued, Americans will see massive tax bills exploding in size starting next year.
Included are limited provisions for tax exemptions for tipped income and auto loan interest, as well as a $6,000 deduction for seniors over the age of 65, part of the effort to end taxes on Social Security benefits.
The plan includes nearly $200 billion to beef up illegal immigration enforcement that has been a major focus of the Trump administration, as well as funding for more border wall, immigration detention centers and surveillance tech.
The bill also strips from non-citizens most benefits from the government, such as Medicaid and food stamps.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump's announcement that he was ending trade negotiations with Canada over a new digital services tax imposed by America's northern neighbor has brought results: The suspension of that tax.
According to an announcement from the Department of Finance Canada, those negotiations had been underway.
"To support those negotiations, the minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States," a government statement confirmed.
"Consistent with this action, Prime Minister Carney and President Trump have agreed that parties will resume negotiations with a view towards agreeing on a deal by July 21, 2025."
Canada's statement said, "The DST was announced in 2020 to address the fact that many large technology companies operating in Canada may not otherwise pay tax on revenues generated from Canadians. Canada's preference has always been a multilateral agreement related to digital services taxation. While Canada was working with international partners, including the United States, on a multilateral agreement that would replace national digital services taxes, the DST was enacted to address the aforementioned taxation gap."
"In our negotiations on a new economic and security relationship between Canada and the United States, Canada's new government will always be guided by the overall contribution of any possible agreement to the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses. Today's announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month's G7 Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis," said Mark Carney, the prime minister.
WND had reported only days ago that Trump had halted those negotiations and said a new tariff for Canada would be imposed because of the DST.
"We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country," Trump said at the time on social media. "They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also. Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Senate passed a procedural step Saturday night by a 51-49 vote to move forward with President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act, as Vice President JD Vance stood by in case he was needed to break a tie.
Trump has called on Congress to approve the package of tax cuts and spending by July 4th.
As reported by the Associated Press, the vote came after tense scenes played out in the chamber as voting came to a standstill, dragging for hours as holdout senators huddled for negotiations. In the end, two Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, opposed the motion to proceed to debate, joining all Democrats.
Ahead of the expected roll call, the White House released a statement saying it "strongly supports passage" of the bill that "implements critical aspects" of the president's agenda.
"It's time to get this legislation across the finish line," said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.
The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday, and senators are expected to grind through the hours of all-night debate and amendments in the days ahead, AP reports. If the Senate is able to pass a version of the legislation, the bill would go back to the House for a final round of votes before reaching Trump's desk.
As WND reported, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York is expected to call for a full reading of the text in the Senate, which would take hours.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftists who have migrated to a social media platform called Bluesky, a competitor – even though it's only a fraction of the size – of X, formerly Twitter, have responded to an invitation from Vice President JD Vance to discuss the issues … by blocking him.
A Fox News report explained that Vance "is leveraging" the social media platform "commonly used by liberals," to troll Democrats.
He joined the platform a week ago, and was able, eventually, to post after the corporation originally blocked him entirely.
He instantly became the social media platform's "most blocked user," the report said.
"'It's great to see all of those Dem (party of tolerance) users sticking their heads in the sand by blocking JDV and refusing to even listen to a differing viewpoint," one commenter said.
"Hello Bluesky, I've been told this app has become the place to go for common sense political discussion and analysis. So I'm thrilled to be here to engage with all of you," Vance wrote. Then he shared a comment about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in a decision that affirmed a Tennessee law banning transgender surgeries for minors.
"To that end, I found Justice Thomas's concurrence on medical care for transgender youth quite illuminating. He argues that many of our so-called 'experts' have used bad arguments and substandard science to push experimental therapies on our youth, I might add that many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids. What do you think?"
The report said data from ClearSky, which monitors censorship agendas on social media platforms, confirmed that Vance's account on Bluesky "has been blocked by nearly 150,000 other accounts."
Bluesky became a little more popular following President Donald Trump's 2024 election, and offers services as an "alternative" to X, owned by tech billionaire Elon Musk, who supported Trump in the election.
Vance had "quipped" that he heard Bluesky was the platform for "common sense political discussion and analysis."
The corporation immediately banned his account, then reinstated it, claiming it had been flagged as an imposter account.
Fox reported, "In the week since Vance joined the platform, he has repeatedly trolled Democrats, including following New York City's mayoral primaries, when democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani trounced top competitor and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo at the polls. Mamdani's victory is viewed as the Democrat Party moving farther to the left in New York City after national voters sounded off in the 2024 election that the party's embrace of some left-wing policies alienated Americans."
Vance had offered "congratulations to the new leader of the Democratic Party."
Another response on social media, about the blocking, was, "Of course the left will block him. The truth blows up the brainwashing."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A commentary has come up with a stunningly direct solution to the problem created by federal judges who oppose President Donald Trump's border security plans that include deporting illegal alien criminals when they order them un-deported, or brought back.
Specifically, there's a case involving a Boston judge, Brian Murphy, who has demanded the government not deport a list of criminals who had been convicted of crimes including attempted first-degree murder, homicide, assault and more.
The criminals had been en route to South Sudan when the judge interrupted the deportation, ordering that the U.S. must maintain custody of them, so ICE officers have been guarding the criminals in a make-shift location in Djibouti.
According to the column by M.D. Kittle at the Federalist, "Murphy, like the other rogue judges who have attempted to stop the executive branch from carrying out the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws (as the Second Branch is empowered to do), demand the kind of due process rights for illegal immigrants reserved for criminal proceedings. They have no such rights."
In fact, Lora Ries, of the Heritage Foundation's Border Security and Immigration Center, has explained, "The administrative immigration judges are Justice Department employees in the executive branch; they are not federal judges under the Article III Judiciary of the U.S. Constitution. That means deportable aliens in deportation proceedings do not have the same rights as a person in a criminal trial, such as being innocent until proven guilty, the right to a taxpayer funded public defendant, etc. Removing a deportable alien is not a criminal sentence."
Kittle suggested Trump "likes a good deal," and perhaps it's time for one.
"How about this one: The administration agrees to bring back the violent criminals only if Murphy agrees to put them up at his house while the illegal immigrants receive 'time enough to express any concerns.' Maybe Enrique Arias-Hierro could bunk with the Murphy family. I'm sure the illegal immigrant wouldn't reoffend and violate the Boston judge's due process rights."
That illegal alien, in fact, is from Cuba. "His criminal history includes convictions for homicide, armed robbery, false impersonation of official, kidnapping, robbery strong arm," the column said.
Murphy, in fact, has ruled that the administration could not deport criminal aliens to third-party countries when their own nations refused to take them back. When the Supreme Court overturned Murphy's ruling, he simply said that ruling didn't apply to the case he was handling and his ruling still stood.
The column pointed out the idea to house the criminals is like that used by two Republican governors to "hit self-righteous, sanctuary leftists where they lived."
That would be Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis who "triggered" Democrats in 2022 when they began busing and flying "undocumented migrants" to Democrat-controlled cities and locales like Martha's Vineyard, "the posh playground of liberal elites including Barack and Michelle Obama."
Under Biden's practices, America's borders were wide open and millions, even tens of millions of illegals entered. Among those were gang members and even terrorists.
Trump now is working to clean up the "millions-fold mess left by his predecessor."
And it is that agenda that "rogue federal judges have attempted to stop."
The column noted the eight convicts at issue in the Murphy case include:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Federal provision allows cash handouts to end 'pursuant to the terms and conditions of the federal award, including to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities'
One thing can be said for certain, President Donald Trump's election to the Oval Office for a second term has assured the federal judiciary of job security.
Dozens, even hundreds, of lawsuits have been filed by individuals, groups, entities, states and nations over his agenda points.
From the work of the Department of Government Efficiency in making budget cutbacks, to his foreign policy, to his economics, to his appointments, no part of the executive branch's constitutional responsibilities that Trump has exercised has escaped being named in some court filing somewhere.
But now instead of waiting for some "offense" to come out of the Trump administration, leftist states that largely voted against the 2024 landslide election victory for Trump and supported the word-salad pro Kamala Harris are suing.
They want court orders to prevent Trump from acting, not just to reverse his orders.
"We can't just sit back and wait for the next set of cuts," Mathew Platkin, the attorney general for New Jersey, claimed.
At issue is a federal OMB ruling that cash handouts set up by Washington can be canceled, "pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Federal award, including, to the extent authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities."
That last phrase suddenly has become important, as the priorities of federal agencies under the executive branch have changed dramatically from the tenure of Joe Biden, whose goals included abortion for all and transgenderism for children.
For instance, where Biden's Department of Justice persecuted pro-life activists who even entered those "bubble zones" around abortion businesses, Trump's DOJ is investigating the vandalism at pro-life centers and churches.
Where Biden openly pushed transgenderism on Americans and their organizations and churches, often despite outraged opposition, Trump's order states that the federal government recognizes two genders, male and female.
Biden openly promoted transgenderism in the military; Trump is working to remove those individuals, whose medical conditions are incredibly costly to taxpayers, from the ranks.
Biden insisted on open borders that allowed in millions of illegal aliens, including criminals and even terrorists; Trump has sealed the border and is working to deport those criminals.
Each issue has, at some point, generated legal conflict.
The new lawsuit has been filed in Massachusetts, where the plaintiff states of New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, are more likely to obtain a leftist, activist judge than in many other states.
Named are an entire list of federal departments and their managers, mostly appointed by Trump
The states claim that President Trump has launched "an unprecedented and unlawful campaign to terminate billions of dollars in critical federal funding appropriated by Congress."
The complaint doesn't immediately cite that that agenda is exactly what Americans voted for in the 2024 presidential race.
The states complain about the executive branch's decisions to end grants that the Biden administration had awarded, including billions of dollars handed out during the lame-duck part of Biden's term, like, as one commentator explained, dumping gold bars from the Titanic.
While Biden's agencies obviously "approved" those grants, the bureaucracies now under the administration of President Trump no longer support the goals.
"Federal agencies have engaged in this nationwide slash-and-burn campaign by unlawfully invoking a single subclause buried in federal regulations promulgated by the Office of Manage of Budget," the plaintiffs claim.
That, of course, is the permission for agencies to terminate grants "if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities."
The plaintiff states, in fact, are demanding those billions of dollars adopted by Biden bureaucrats be delivered by the Trump administration. They claim without the money, hurt will be programs to fight crime, educate students, safeguard public health, protect clean drinking water, conduct medical and scientific research, address food insecurity, ensure unemployment benefits and more.
They claim the states' sole offense is to be doing just what the Biden bureaucrats demanded, even though those grants are under the auspices of the administration of Trump now, often with complete opposite priorities.
The states claim that the OMB "never suggested … that a grant could be terminated even though the grant was continuing to serve the very goals for which the monies had initially be awarded, merely because the agency's priorities shifted midway during the use of the grant…"
The leftists, including some of those who orchestrated a years-long lawfare campaign against Trump, complained that federal agencies, when Trump took office, "abruptly shifted course."
Trump had, in fact, told agencies and DOGE to "review all existing covered contracts and grants and, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, terminate or modify" them.
The states complain that the Trump administration now is invoking the clause to terminate grants "based on newly identified agency priorities."
The states complain that the OMB itself allows "no support for a broad power to terminate grants on a whim based on newly identified agency priorities."
And they complaint that no longer being in the pipeline for federal cash handouts has hurt them.
Their solution is for a court to disallow permanently the termination of grants "on the basis that the grant 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities' if the award terms and conditions do not 'clearly and unambiguously specify' that the award can be terminated."
That ruling, if made and eventually affirmed, essentially would lock in each new presidential administration into the funding priorities that the previous administration demanded, meaning a president elected in 2028, should that be a Democrat, could be locked into hundreds of billions of dollars in spending that Trump could authorizes during his final months of his second term.
They also demand that the court set aside existing federal regulations and practice.
Among the signatures on the document was Letitia James, attorney general for New York who currently is under investigation for federal mortgage fraud; Philip Weiser, of Colorado, whose all-Democrat state Supreme Court vainly tried to bar Trump from the state's 2024 election ballot, the far-left Dana Nessel whose activities in Michigan have had extremiust overtones for several years, Keith Ellison, the extremist from Minnesota, and more.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Stephen King has come up with some scary scenarios in his horror stories. So have Alfred Hitchcock, Edgar Allen Poe and Bram Stoker.
But none envisioned what a stunning new research paper has confirmed: There are human remains in America's water systems.
The horror is the result of America's new abortion industry agenda to deliver chemical abortion drugs to women.
The research paper, "Abortion in our Water, A Special report: Chemical Home Abortions & the Disposition of Aborted Fetal Remains," comes from Liberty Counsel Action.
"This is an unfolding environmental and public health crisis," John Stemberger, chief of Liberty Counsel Action. "The same water that Americans use to drink, cook, and bathe in may contain residuals from powerful, lethal abortion drugs. No one voted for this, and if folks were aware, there would be public outcry. We are all living with these consequences. The EPA instructs Americans not to flush baby wipes, tampons, or goldfish, and yet it allows abortion providers to use wastewater treatment facilities as medical waste facilities and biohazard centers – flushing human fetal tissues that include newly formed organs, placenta, and bone fragments."
The 86-page paper contains an executive summary and is documented with 335 footnotes. Its primary author is Abigail Forman, a former legislator from Minnesota who serves as a researcher and policy analyst with Liberty Counsel Action, an organization chaired by constitutional law attorney Mat Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which has fought some of the biggest fights for the pro-life beliefs across the nation.
The paper documents how an estimated 30-40 tons of hazardous medical waste, including human remains, are being flushed.
It analyzes the impacts of flushing the abortion pill, Mifepristone, and other chemical abortion drugs and their residue, each year.
It draws of a variety of studies and peer-reviewed research, petitions to the EPA, government resources and interviews with water treatment experts.
It draws attention to:
The report notes President Donald Trump repeatedly has called for "crystal-clean water" and it now calls on him to act.
The report also calls on Congress and federal agencies to immediately investigate the oversight failures related to the original and subsequent approvals of Mifepristone and propose new regulations that treat "at-home" chemical abortions with the same environmental scrutiny as hospital-based procedures.
The report notes that the original application for FDA approval of the abortion chemicals was flawed because it claimed, citing an environmental assessment from the Population Council, that the impact of the drug on the environment would be minimal.
There was no consideration of the human remains.
"These gross oversights amount to clear violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Water Act (CWA)," the report charges.
"Students for Life of America estimates that 40+ tons of chemically tainted medical waste have entered our wastewater treatment plants, which, in any other context, would be a national scandal. As it pertains to other possible human harms, it is important to note mifepristone acts as an endocrine disruptor (a chemical that may mimic or interfere with a body's hormones) by blocking a vital fertility hormone. Mifepristone is also known to form 'active metabolites,' that is, metabolites that retain therapeutic effects. After being excreted by women, these metabolites enter wastewater treatment plants—most of which are not designed to remove them—and may end up in our water supply," it warns.