This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Pentagon is pushing back against media claims that the number of female military recruits are down under President Trump, pointing to actual statistics.
As Fox News reported, women recruitment is up in all branches of the armed forces in Fiscal Year 2025.
"The media's narrative that the female recruitment numbers have either fallen or stayed the same under Secretary Hegseth and President Trump is 100% fake news," a defense official told Fox. "Leadership matters, and women are excited to serve under the strong leadership of Secretary Hegseth and President Trump."
Around 7,260 more women have enlisted so far this fiscal year than at this point last fiscal year: from 16,725 to 23,985, according to Pentagon figures.
Female recruitment is trending up just as overall recruitment numbers have. The U.S. Army surpassed its overall recruitment goals in June, four months before the end of the fiscal year.
As Fox reports, after record-low recruitment in 2022, the trend began to reverse in 2024, with the armed forces bringing in 12.5% more personnel than the year prior.
Hegseth has credited a return to "war fighting" and repudiation of woke policies for what has been called the "Trump bump" in recruitment.
"They see leadership … that says, 'We want you to be warriors. We're not doing this politically correct garbage anymore. We're doing war fighting,'" Hegseth said during a visit to Normandy, France, in June.
"The bottom line is this administration and Secretary Hegseth has prioritized lethality and mission readiness over political pandering. That's exactly why women, and men, all across the country are more trusting of their leadership and more willing to serve," Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., an Air Force veteran, is quoted as saying.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky Tuesday praised President Trump's Federal Emergency Management Agency for how much better the agency is than under President Biden.
Beshear, a possible candidate for president in 2028, praised the speed and effectiveness of FEMA's response to natural disasters.
Fox News reports that the comments came in an interview with "At Our Table" podcast host Jaime Harrison. Beshear said he believed the American people agree that the federal government should be there at their darkest moments, "where through no fault of your own, a hurricane, a tornado, flooding has torn through your communities."
"The irony of all of it to me is, is Trump's FEMA on the ground has done a good job in Kentucky. They have bettered their customer service. We're not getting nearly as many complaints. They're getting a lot of money through individual assistance out to families, especially after flooding. It's actually a credit to his administration, and it seems to be the thing that they want to undo or unwind. Hopefully, him seeing it personally has an emotional impact because we need FEMA for that emergency response," Beshear said.
Discussing the current state of his Democratic Party, Beshear noted, "We've got to make sure that we don't get in our own way. And what I mean by that is we've got to be able to look at things that maybe we should have done better. And, as we go forward, make sure that we are not tripping ourselves up."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin shut down CNN host Kasie Hunt Sunday on "State of the Union," saying the pictures Hunt displayed in her opening had "nothing to do" with a major Trump administration climate policy announcement.
The EPA on Tuesday announced it would formally end the 2009 Obama-era Endangerment Finding, which allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. In Hunt's opening monologue before bringing on Zeldin, the CNN host criticized the EPA's new change while images of power plants with smoke billowing into the sky played in the background, prompting Zeldin to correct her.
Hunt asked if Zeldin accepted the "overwhelming scientific consensus that these greenhouse gas emissions are the biggest drivers of man-made climate change."
"Well, it's great to be on with you. First, it's worth pointing out that all eight or so images that you just posted on the screen have nothing to do with this week's announcement," Zeldin responded. "What the 2009 endangerment finding had to do with was with regards to mobile sources vehicles."
"This week's proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding was with regards to mobile sources vehicles. CNN's been using a lot of photos where they show smokestacks of stationary sources like power plants. That's not what we proposed," Zeldin continued. "Now going back to 2009, the science that they were reviewing included both optimistic to pessimistic scenarios. To reach the 2009 endangerment finding, they relied on the most pessimistic views of the science."
In a public response to the agency's decision to roll back the Endangerment Finding, Zeldin told the hosts of the "Ruthless" podcast that the regulation is not only costly for Americans, but has also been used to impose strict rules on vehicles. Without it, consumers could see more freedom of choice and potentially lower costs.
Zeldin went on to state that "a lot" of the assumed "pessimistic views of the science in 2009" did not end up "panning out," pointing to how the EPA can now ultimately "rely on 2025 facts as opposed to 2009 bad assumptions."
"The other thing too is that at EPA, we don't just get to creatively make the law whatever we want it to be," Zeldin added. "The Supreme Court ruled in Loper Bright overturning the Chevron doctrine in West Virginia versus EPA, Michigan versus EPA, that agencies like the EPA can't just use vague language in statute and try to make it be whatever we want it to be. The major policy doctrine also says that when you're going to reach something like an endangerment finding and then have trillions of dollars of regulation, that's something that should be decided by our elected members of Congress in passing statute."
"If you don't mind, the 2009 endangerment finding, while it's simply summed up now as saying carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare, that's not what they did back in 2009. They had a lot of mental leaps. They say carbon dioxide, when mixed with a whole bunch of other well-mixed gases, in some cases not even emitted from mobile sources, they say that that contributes to global climate change. It doesn't say causes, contributes. How much? They don't say, but it's north of zero, not much more than zero."
Talks of rolling back the 2009 Endangerment Finding began in March and were discussed with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other federal agencies. By June 30, the EPA had formally submitted its request to OMB regarding the regulation.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has proposed legislation in Congress that would give American taxpayers each at least $600 in the form of a rebate, taken from the huge cash haul that is expected during 2025 from President Donald Trump's tariffs on foreign nations.
Trump has been working since taking office to balance the world trade and make it more fair for American consumers and corporations, who long have been subsidizing other nations' incomes.
He's used tariffs as both a stick and carrot to persuade other nations to reach trade agreements, and multiple deals have been inked, the most recent with the European Union which will have those nations paying America a 15% tariff, purchasing more American products and investing $600 billion in the U.S.
The results have been positive, with the nation's trade surplus in June at $27 billion, just what Trump's tariffs brought in. Further, the economy now is assessed to be growing at an annual rate of 3%.
The Washington Examiner noted Hawley's plan would provide for $600 rebates per person, but that number could go higher depending on the actual tariff revenue this year, which now is estimated to be in the range of $200 billion to $250 billion.
"Americans deserve a tax rebate after four years of Biden policies that have devastated families' savings and livelihoods," Hawley said, about his "American Worker Rebate Act."
"Like President Trump proposed, my legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country."
It does provide for reduced rebates for those individuals with income above $75,000 or couples with income higher than $150,000.
WND reported earlier when Trump confirmed he likes the idea.
Trump said, "We're thinking about that [a rebate], actually. We have so much money coming in we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt. We're thinking about a rebate. That's a very good question. You just made a lot of news."
That drew Hawley's promise:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Homonyms beware! You might be racist.
A sexy, new blue jeans advertising campaign by American Eagle is drawing fire from some who claim it is a subtle bit of Nazi propaganda.
Actress Sydney Sweeney appears alongside the slogan, "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans." One of the iterations has Sweeney putting up a large ad that features the word "genes" crossed out and replaced with "jeans."
That appears to be too much for those with a heighten sensitivity to racism – real or imagined.
As the Gateway Pundit reported, a report on the ABC News program "Good Morning America First Look" first raised the specter of racism. Anchor Rhiannon Ally Tuesday said, "The play on words is being compared to Nazi propaganda with racial undertones."
For the story, ABC News interviewed professor Robin Landa with Kean University, who likened the American Eagle ad campaign to the early 20th century American eugenics movement that justified white supremacism.
Newsweek also sounded the alarm, quoting professor Robin Landa: "The campaign's pun isn't just tone-deaf – it's historically loaded."
The magazine reported: "Landa said that the phrase 'good genes' was once central to American eugenics ideology, which promoted white genetic superiority and enabled the forced sterilization of marginalized groups.
"Landa added that, when major brands use language with such weight, they risk reinforcing harmful ideologies under the guise of clever messaging."
Predictably, the internet was not quiet about the Nazi claims.
One man on X posted: "As a PROUD black man, I see nothing wrong with Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle parading her 'good genes/jeans.' Celebrating blue eyes and blonde hair isn't 'white supremacy.' Those are conventionally attractive, GOOD GENES. That doesn't mean they're the ONLY good genes."
Savannah Hernandez posted: "What the Sydney Sweeney ad actually shows is a cultural shift toward hot women again (thank God) Gone are the days of fat women and trannies accosting us with their ugliness."
Another female X user opined: "I love the new Sydney Sweeney ads for American Eagle. Normal hot girls are BACK! Not porn. Not trans. Not gay. Not obese to make a point. Not wearing a headscarf to be inclusive. Not political. Just a hot girl in jeans. The world is healing …"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Planned Parenthood, the giant in America's abortion industry with hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue, is being sued by the state of Missouri for deceiving American women about the safety of an abortion chemical it provides.
"For years, Planned Parenthood Federation of America has been lying to Americans about the risks of abortion pills," charges the legal filing against the abortionists, according to the claim brought in federal court in Missouri by the state itself.
"Planned Parenthood tells Missourians that the abortion pill is 'safer than many other medicines like penicillin, Tylenol, and Viagra. … That is brazenly false. A single dose of the abortion pill regularly lands woman in the emergency room."
In fact, the case documents that "up to 4.6% of women who take a single dose of 'mifepristone'" will end up in the emergency room.
The lawsuit explains, "Planned Parenthood is lying about the abortion pill to cut costs and boost revenue. Most physicians are not interested in working for Planned Parenthood—in part because of what the New York Times reports as a pattern of 'botched care' at Planned Parenthoods across the country that has put Planned Parenthood in a 'crisis.' Katie Benner, Botched Care and Tired Staff: Planned Parenthood in Crisis, New York Times (Feb. 15, 2025). Indeed, a Planned Parenthood facility in Columbia, Missouri, was recently shut down by the health department because the facility was using moldy abortion equipment. Working for Planned Parenthood carries reputational risk. Unable to hire enough physicians, Planned Parenthood schemes for shortcuts. Because it is easy for untrained, nonphysicians to deliver abortion pills, Planned Parenthood has successfully increased the proportion of abortions that occur by abortion pill. Now, two-thirds of all abortions occur by pill, a significant increase from 2017, when the abortion pill was used in just over one-third of abortions. To induce women to obtain the abortion pill, Planned Parenthood lies to women, concealing from them the high risks posed by the abortion pill."
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey the abortion corporation is in violation of the state's Merchandising Practices Act.
It got to that position by "systematically" misleading women, the case charges.
"The national Planned Parenthood organization is actively endangering the lives of women and girls across the country by spreading lies and disinformation about the powerful chemical abortion drug," Bailey charges.
Bailey's court action seeks more than $1.8 million in civil penalties for daily violations of Missouri law, up to $1,000 in damages or restitution for every Missouri woman Planned Parenthood provided abortion pills to in the past five years, reimbursement to the state for Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded emergency care resulting from abortion pill complications and a court order halting Planned Parenthood Federation of America from continuing to promote these falsehoods in Missouri.
In March, Bailey had previously issued a cease-and-desist order to Planned Parenthood formally prohibiting the abortion giant from performing chemical abortions in the state citing the company's "uncontroverted track record" for disregarding Missouri health and safety laws.
Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver said, "Comparing chemical abortion drugs to Tylenol is offensive and deceptive. Chemical abortions harm women physically and emotionally and cruelly kill defenseless children in the womb. The abortion industry has an agenda of death that disregards the life of unborn children and the health of their mothers."
Bailey added, "Planned Parenthood's false advertising has a national reach, including targeted claims against Missouri women. The organization uses its website to make dangerous claims, such as calling the chemical abortion drug mifepristone, 'safer than many other medicines like penicillin, Tylenol, and Viagra.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A legal fight in Kentucky that erupted when same-sex marriage activists demanded a Christian clerk violate state law and grant them a "marriage" license just hours after the Supreme Court created that status in America, now has returned to the Supreme Court.
The case is asking the justices to reverse their decision from 10 years ago, and it uses the same arguments used several years back to successfully overturn Roe v. Wade, that longstanding, and error-loaded, ruling from 1973 that created an abortion right.
The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also could be used against "same-sex marriage." Neither abortion nor marriage actually is in the U.S. Constitution, so justices over the years have manufactured reasons to support both "rights."
The analysis, from several years ago, cited the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe for being based on "substantive due process," a doctrine adopted by some justices over the years to create "implied fundamental rights."
"Through various opinions, the Court has recognized a right of personal privacy, which has been extended to other activities such as inter-racial marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing," the analysis said.
To manufacture same-sex "marriages," the court relied on "substantive due process" to claim same-sex "marriage" is constitutionally protected.
And the analysis said, "The aftermath of the Dobbs decision spans beyond abortion by calling into question other decisions that were decided on similar grounds to Roe — Obergefell (same-sex marriage), Lawrence (same-sex sexual conduct), and Griswold (contraceptives)—and whether the overturning of Roe presents a similar fate for these decisions."
Specifically, Justice Clarence Thomas stated at the time, "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous'…we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
Now Liberty Counsel has revealed that that case, challenging the existence of the Obergefell decision, the same-sex "marriage" case, is before the court.
It involves multiple attacks on Kim Davis, a former Rowan County clerk in Kentucky.
She was the first victim "jailed, sued, and held personally liable post-Obergefell for her sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage. Believing marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Davis ceased issuing any marriage licenses while she sought an accommodation for her religious beliefs. The courts then used Obergefell, which legalized 'same-sex marriage' nationwide, to deny her a religious accommodation that unconstitutionally forced her to choose between her religious beliefs and her livelihood," Liberty Counsel explained.
"This case began Friday, June 26, 2015, when 'five lawyers' on the U.S. Supreme Court released the Obergefell opinion that declared same-sex couples have the right to be 'married,'" the Liberty Counsel reported.
The dissent at that time pointed out the creation of same-sex "marriage" was, in fact, unrelated to the U.S. Constitution.
Davis under state law had no authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples without specific direction from the state statutes. And doing so would violate her religious beliefs. Despite that Democrat Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear ordered all clerks to violate state law.
"The Kentucky Senate President sided with Davis and made clear that every action pertaining to marriage is highly regulated by the state. Therefore, any clerk that issued marriage licenses without the sanction of Kentucky law could be held liable for criminal charges. Clerks like Davis were paralyzed. If she followed the governor's order, she could have been charged with a misdemeanor. If she waited until the legislature acted, she would be sued," the report said.
Further, Davis, a Christian, could not violate her faith by doing what clearly was barred by biblical teachings.
She asked lawmakers to address the conflict, but meanwhile, a leftist, Judge David L. Bunning, put her in jail.
When a new governor, Matt Bevins, a Republican, took office in Kentucky, he issued an executive order granting clerks of faith a religious accommodation and the state legislature followed by establishing that in state law.
However, several duos who had demanded Davis violate her faith and state law sued her, personally, for not giving them what they demanded.
That their moves were targeted at Davis was documented by the fact they could have gone to multiple other locations for their "licenses" but refused to do so.
And they shared their videos on social media in a campaign of public harassment "to shame and humiliate Davis."
Two duos eventually sued her for "hurt feelings" and one jury found no damages. The other returned a total judgement of $100,000, to which a judge added $260,000 in lawyers' fees.
"According to the Eleventh Amendment, a government official acting in an official capacity has "immunity" and cannot be held personally liable. However, the court stripped Davis of this government shield. But even in her personal capacity, Davis (like any person) has an absolute First Amendment defense against a claim solely based on emotional damages, yet the court stripped this away as well," the legal team said.
Now Liberty Counsel is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to "(1) overturn this unjust judgement against Davis by finding that she has an affirmative First Amendment Defense, and (2) overturn Obergefell v. Hodges."
The questions being delivered to the Supreme Court include:
1. Whether the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause provides an affirmative defense to tort liability based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages in the same manner as the Free Speech Clause under Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).
2. Whether a government official stripped of Eleventh Amendment immunity and sued in her individual capacity based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages is entitled to assert individual capacity and personal First Amendment defenses in the same or similar manner as any other individual defendant like in Synder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), or does she stand before this Court with no constitutional defenses or immunity whatsoever.
3. Whether Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), and the legal fiction of substantive due process, should be overturned.
Liberty Counsel's petition opens by citing several dissenting justices from the 5-4 Obergefell opinion who predicted it would threaten the religious liberty of those who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas said that Obergefell would have 'potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"
The filing explains, "That is what happened here. Davis was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported emotional distress."
The filing warned, "A decision like that where government defendants are stripped of their immunity and stand before a court as an individual without any personal First Amendment defenses 'would mean government officials shed their constitutional rights upon election, appointment, or other entrance of government service. That cannot be right.'"
Cited is the 2022 Dobbs decision, which declared the Due Process Clause "does not secure any substantive rights," including abortion.
Liberty Counsel said that means "it does not secure a right to 'same-sex marriage' either, and 'especially not a right to receive a 'same-sex marriage' license from a specific government official, regardless of that individual's religious convictions."
"If ever there were a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it," said Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
"Kim Davis' case underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the wrongly decided Obergefell v. Hodges opinion because it threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman."
Notable is the fact that several of the far-left activists who were on the Supreme Court 10 years ago, whose votes all were required to release the Obergefell opinion, now are not, having been replaced by justices nominated by President Donald Trump.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Democrat lawmaker in the state of Minnesota is keeping her word.
But that's really not as good as it sounds, as she's keeping her word to resign after she was convicted of burglary.
The Liberty Daily confirmed it is state Sen. Nicole Mitchell, a Democrat, who has released her plans to walk away from her public duties following her conviction by a jury.
Mitchell's lawyers, in a statement, said she wants to wrap up "outstanding legislative projects" and then will resign no later than Aug. 4.
She had been convicted by a jury of burglary for breaking into her stepmother's house.
Her lawyers said, "Senator Mitchell's constituents deserve for her legislative projects to be finalized or ready to hand off to her successor before she resigns."
The report explained Mitchell was arrested in April 2024 when Carol Mitchell, her estranged stepmother, called police to report a break-in.
"At the time, Detroit Lakes police found Mitchell in her stepmother's basement dressed in all black and carrying a flashlight covered with a black sock, Fox 9 reported," according to the report.
Erin Murphy, the Democrat leader in the state Senate, confirmed Mitchell has promised she would step down in convicted.
She had been under pressure from fellow lawmakers to leave.
"Mitchell, a meteorologist and Air Force officer, currently represents the Minnesota Senate's 47th district, and was first elected in 2022," the report said.
Broadcaster KSTP reported Mitchell was convicted on two felony charges, and Becker County Judge Michael D. Fritz will decide Mitchell's punishment on Sept. 10.
At the time of her arrest, Mitchell claimed to police she was in the home in order to retrieve some of her late father's belongings.
Later, at trial, she claimed to the jury she was checking on her stepmother, who has Alzheimer's.
She could face up to 20 years in prison for first-degree burglary.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An anti-Trump judge in the federal judiciary now has been described as a "threat to the rule of law," by an official in the Department of Justice.
The comments come from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and are about James Boasberg, who repeatedly has used his own agendas in his court rulings that have struck down the president's.
In one case, he demanded that the president order airplanes carrying illegal alien criminals on deportation flights be turned around mid-air and brought back to the U.S., without regarding to whether those jets had enough fuel to do that.
Those airplanes were outside of American airspace already, however, and the White House explained Boasberg's jurisdiction didn't extend to international locations and foreign countries.
It was revealed this week that Boasberg, at a recent judicial conference, had made disparaging remarks about Trump, even though he's supposed to be neutral on issues and people in his court, where Trump is a defendant in a number of cases brought by activists trying to undermine his agenda for America.
A report at the Washington Examiner said Blanche was responding to Boasberg's comments and said, the judge was in "serious breach of the judicial oath and a threat to the rule of law."
"This memo confirms that at least some federal judges were predisposed against the Trump administration," Blanche wrote. "Every litigant, regardless of politics, is entitled to a fair forum."
The report noted, "Other senior DOJ officials, including Chad Mizelle, called the report 'very troubling' and said it 'perhaps explains the completely lawless order issued by Judge Boasberg (which was unsurprisingly stayed by the D.C. Circuit).'"
WND reported on the revelations about Boasberg's criticisms of Trump.
It was in a report at the Federalist that investigative reporter and senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland revealed Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., advised Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that his colleagues were "concern[ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
Boasberg is the chief judge in the judicial district and has been at center of a judicial campaign to prevent Trump's agenda to secure the American borders and deport illegal aliens, those who are in the United States illegally, and often have committed subsequent crimes.
Further, Boasberg also was at the center of activism before President Trump's first term when Trump was under attack in the fabricated Russiagate conspiracy theory launched by the Hillary Clinton campaign and others with lies about Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
Boasberg was chosen for his job by leftist Barack Obama, who now is just one subject of a congressional investigation into a vast conspiracy that developed in Washington targeting Trump.
Boasberg, in fact, when sentencing an ex-FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted doctoring a 2017 email regarding Deep State's work against Trump, refused to give him any prison time but told him to do community service.
Boasberg ruled against Trump in one deportation dispute and told him to order airplanes carrying illegal aliens out of the United States to turn around mid-air and come back.
The White House responded that the jets, carrying the "terrorist alien" individuals, already had left U.S. airspace and the judge had no jurisdiction there.
Federal judges already have heard hundreds of claims by those wanting to stop Trump's agenda to remove unneeded personnel from federal payrolls, stop handing billions of tax dollars to unfriendly foreign interests and more.
As a result of the campaign by district judges to target Trump's actions, the Supreme Court intervened and said they were misusing their offices by repeatedly ordering nationwide injunctions against Trump's agenda. The court said those judges haven't been granted the constitutional authority to do that.
The Federalist reported it obtained access to a memo from a recent Judicial Conference meeting in Washington.
That group is the national policymaking body for federal courts.
"That Judge Boasberg and his fellow D.C. District Court judges would discuss how a named Defendant in numerous pending lawsuits might respond to an adverse ruling is shocking. Equally outrageous is those judges' clear disregard for the presumption of regularity — a presumption that requires a court to presume public officials properly discharged their official duties," the Federalist reported.
At the meeting, the report said, "a side conversation at the group's most recent meeting revealed a disturbing detail — the predisposition of supposedly unbiased judges against the Trump Administration."
The memo explained, "District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues' concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
The Federalist noted the memo continued, "Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize."
The report pointed out, "Donald Trump, however, is not merely the president: He is a Defendant in scores of lawsuits, including multiple cases in the D.C. District Court. As such, this conversation did not concern generic concerns of the judiciary, but specific discussions about a litigant currently before the same judges who expressed concern to the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court that the Trump Administration would disregard the court's orders."
The report noted, "Judge Boasberg's comments reveal he and his colleagues hold an anti-Trump bias, for the Trump Administration had complied with every court order to date (and since for that matter). The D.C. District Court judges' 'concern' also went counter to the normal presumption courts hold — one that presumes public officials properly discharged their official duties. Apparently, that presumption does not apply to the current president, at least if you are litigating in D.C."
The Federalist noted just days later, "Boasberg, in a case in which he completely lacked jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court would later confirm, entered a lawless order commanding the Trump Administration to halt removals to El Salvador. So, one of the judges concerned about Trump following the law, ignored the law."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In wake of the passage of President Trump's big beautiful bill, the White House Tuesday posted an interactive map to enable Americans to discover the positive financial impact of the legislation's passage in their state, compared with conditions if the measure had failed.
The page also includes a "Tax-Free Tips and Overtime Calculator" for workers to figure out what their individual savings will be under the new law.
The map allows users to click on a specific state, and statistics pop up, including average take-home pay increases, the number of Social Security recipients that will be helped, as well as the projected number of jobs in that state that will be protected.
"A typical family with two children in California can expect to see higher take-home pay of about $8500 to $12500 with OBBB compared to if it was not passed," according to the map. "Around 4% of the labor force is employed in occupations that would likely benefit from the no taxes on tips provision of the OBBB. Around 6.0 million seniors in California could benefit from the no taxes on Social Security provision of the OBBB."