Barron Trump, youngest son of President Donald Trump, returned to the campus of New York University on Tuesday for the first time since his father's inauguration, the Financial Express reported. The younger Trump is a freshman studying business at the Stern School of Business.
The younger Trump was spotted wearing an off-white sweater with a coordinating polo shirt underneath. He paired that with black jeans and sneakers for a preppy casual look.
Barron returned to school later than other students as he missed the first few weeks due to his father's swearing-in on Jan. 20. Many social media users shared photos of Barron back at school and looking every bit the part of a handsome and wealthy scholar.
NYP: Barron Trump spotted at NYU for first time since his father’s inauguration
He’s wearing a cream colored sweater 🔥 pic.twitter.com/tIuh5tPM5h
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) February 4, 2025
Barron is just 18 years old, but the New York Post reported that he's already looking to get his own real estate firm up and running. The younger Trump is currently working with two business partners who form Trump, Fulcher & Roxburgh Capital Inc.
The company, domiciled at the Trump residence in Palm Beach, Florida, is eyeing the luxury property market. There are plans for golf courses and other projects in Utah, Arizona, and Idaho, a business plan that mirrors the elder Trump's real estate sweet spot.
This is all coming together while Barron is only part of the way into his first year at college. His mother, first lady Melania Trump, said in October on Fox News' The Five that Barron "loves his classes and his professors."
Another insider shared that despite not having a "normal" transition to college life, Barron is "really popular with the ladies" at the left-leaning institution. "He’s tall and handsome. A lot of people seem to think he’s pretty attractive — yes, even liberal people like him,” the insider added.
This new visibility is in contrast to Donald Trump's first term when Barron was virtually kept hidden. He said very little throughout the 2024 campaign, but by the end, it was clear that Donald Trump's formerly nonpolitical son was one of his greatest assets.
As it turned out, Barron was the Trump campaign's dark horse who certainly had a hand in pushing the candidate over the finish line. "He knew the youth vote," Donald Trump said at the inaugural parade, according to Fox News.
"You know, we won the youth vote by 36 points…He said, ‘Dad, you got to go out, do Joe Rogan, do all these guys,’" the president said of his son's advice.
During the campaign, Donald Trump's advisers created a list of potential podcast appearances. The UK Daily Mail reported that when presented with the list, the then-candidate said, "Call Barron and see what he thinks and let me know."
One of the first Barron suggested was Aldin Ross, a 24-year-old internet phenomenon who interviews controversial guests like Andrew Tate and also livestreams himself playing video games. Barron urged his father to speak with podcast king Joe Rogan, which was a winning strategy indeed.
Barron has quite the pedigree and is already a standout even as a college student. His time at NYU won't be typical, but it already seems it will be fruitful.
A Philadelphia medical examiner has changed his ruling for a third time, saying that the death of a teacher who was stabbed 20 times is "something other than suicide," Breitbart reported. Dr. Marlon Osbourne initially ruled her death a homicide, then inexplicably switched it to suicide, which Pennsylvania's then-Attorney General Josh Shapiro upheld.
The convoluted case involves the death of 27-year-old Ellen Greenberg, who was found dead in her Philadelphia apartment in January 2011. Police found her dead body riddled with stab wounds.
Osbourne initially ruled her death a homicide but inexplicably changed it to suicide a month later. Shapiro, who is now the governor of the Keystone State, upheld that ruling in February 2022 after the family of the deceased woman sued the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s Office.
Now, Osbourne is again reversing his decision amid issues including Shapiro's conflict of interest in the case. "It is my professional opinion Ellen’s manner of death should be designated as something other than suicide," Osbourne said in a court filing Saturday.
This change is just the latest in a string of strange circumstances surrounding this case, which has been ongoing for over a decade. The most significant came after Osbourne's first change of heart, for which no explanation was given.
Then, there was the matter of Shapiro's personal relationship with a possible witness. The person was an attorney and cousin to Samuel Goldberg, Greenberg's fiance, who discovered her body and with whom she spoke to on the phone the night she died.
After a citizen journalist pointed to this connection, Shapiro recused himself from the case. He acknowledged the ties "created the appearance of a conflict of interest" but called the misconduct allegations "unfounded."
The filing Saturday noted factors that caused Osbourne to return to his original determination. "I am now aware that information exists which draws into question, for example, whether Ellen’s fiancé was witnessed entering the apartment before placing the 9-1-1 call on January 26, 2011; whether the door was forced open as reported; whether Ellen’s body was moved by someone else inside the apartment with her at or near the time of her death," Osbourne noted.
Most notably, Osbourne pointed to Dr. Lyndsey Emery's findings about one of Greenberg's wounds. While evaluating a segment of Greenberg's spine, Emery noted a stab wound that was received after death, which would be impossible in a suicide scenario.
Greenberg's parents have fought for the cause of death to be changed from suicide and currently have two pending civil cases. According to CNN, the Greenbergs are seeking damages for a "conspiracy to cover up Ellen’s murder."
Their case hinged on the fact that Goldberg failed to mention for a full two minutes of the 911 call that his fiance had a knife protruding from her chest. When he finally shared that information, Goldberg offered that Greenberg "fell on a knife."
Somehow, police responding to the call felt confident that Greenberg committed suicide and never bothered to call in the crime unit. However, Osbourne's autopsy the day after Greenberg's death showed multiple wounds indicating that she was "stabbed by another person" as well as a mix of bruises that ranged from fresh to healing.
Although Osbourne ruled her death a homicide the next day, which would have warranted an investigation of the crime scene, it was too late. By the time police returned to process the apartment as a crime scene, it had already been professionally cleaned.
There are too many irregularities in this case, but it appears officials are curious about precisely what happened to Greenberg. Unfortunately, they've waited so long that there's a risk that the truth will never be fully revealed.
President Donald Trump reportedly fired the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) Rohit Chopra via email last week in an effort to rid his administration of Biden holdovers.
Chopra was originally appointed to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) by Trump in 2017, but was made director of CFPB in 2021 by Joe Biden.
Chopra's term on the board was supposed to go until the end of 2026, but was prematurely cut short by Trump.
Chopra posted on X that he was grateful to serve under both Trump and Biden.
It's been an honor serving as your @CFPB Director.
Every day, Americans from across the country shared their ideas and experiences with us. You helped us hold powerful companies & their executives accountable for breaking the law, and you made our work better.
Thank you. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/JD7lIcwmHa
— Rohit Chopra (@chopracfpb) February 1, 2025
Chopra claimed in a letter to Trump that he was ready to work with the new administration.
He may have run afoul of Trump, however, when he backed forcing banks to give loans to illegal immigrants in 2023.
He said at the time that the government “will not allow companies to use immigration status as an excuse for illegal discrimination.”
It probably didn't help that he was a protege of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), whose views on finance differ widely from Trump's.
Liberals including Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, speculated that ousting Chopra signals a desire to get rid of the CFPB altogether.
The board was created after the Great Recession of 2008 to protect consumers engaging in transactions like mortgages and car loans.
Republicans have long considered it a “government power grab that does little to protect consumers and hampers economic growth."
The increase in paperwork that consumers have to deal with when getting these kinds of loans is due to the board, and does not seem to have made a great deal of difference in the long term.
President Donald Trump has wasted little time in enacting his second-term agenda, but last week he encountered some judicial obstacles to one of his key priorities.
On Friday, a federal judge placed a temporary block on the Trump administration's freeze on federal funds disbursement covering a range of potential programs, the second time in a week that such a halt was implemented by a court, as NBC News reports.
At issue is a memo issued by Trump's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that ordered federal agencies to place a temporary freeze on the disbursement of grants and loans, a move meant to make certain that funds are not being spent on programs that do not align with the president's overall agenda, as Roll Call explained.
The spending freeze was set to take effect last Tuesday at 5 p.m., and the administration said that it was intended to eliminate spending on “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering.”
Acting OMB Director Matthew Vaeth stated, ““Career and political appointees in the Executive Branch have a duty to align Federal spending and action with the will of the American people as expressed through Presidential priorities,” and added that the memo “requires Federal agencies to identify and review all Federal financial assistance programs and supporting activities consistent with the President's policies and requirements.”
It did not take long for Democrats and members of the mainstream media to seize on the memo and declare it an attempt to circumvent Congress by withholding duly appropriated funding from the American people, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer decrying what he said was “lawlessness and chaos” that would extract “an awful price,” as Fox News reports.
Though White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt went to great lengths to explain that the freeze did not impact anyone who receives direct assistance such as payments from Social Security, Medicare benefits, food stamps, or the like, legal action was initiated to stop the administration's move.
On Tuesday, before the freeze was set to take effect, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan issued a temporary block on the action via an administrative stay.
After hearing arguments from those protesting the action as well as from the administration, AliKhan said, “I do think there is the specter of irreparable harm” and granted the aforementioned stay, effective until Monday.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell agreed with a group of 22 states who sought a block on the funding freeze, stating, “The Executive's action unilaterally suspends the payment of federal funds to the States and others simply by choosing to do so.”
He went on, “The Executive cites no legal authority allowing it to do so; indeed, no such federal law would authorize the Executive's unilateral action here” and granted a temporary restraining order against the administration.
Though the White House last week rescinded the OMB memo at issue and suggested that doing so rendered the nascent litigation moot, Judge McConnell noted that administration spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said that the action did not mean that the funding freeze had been ended, only the memo itself, something he interpreted to mean that the “policies...that the States challenge here are still in full force and effect and thus the issues presented in the States' TRO motion are not moot.”
McConnell's order suggested his belief that the plaintiff states are “likely to succeed on the merits of some, if not all, of their claims,” stating, “Federal law specifies how the Executive should act if it believes that appropriations are inconsistent with the President's priorities -- it must ask Congress, not act unilaterally.”
He continued, “Are there some aspects of the pause that might be legal and appropriate constitutionally for the Executive to take? The Court imagines there are, but it is equally sure that there are many instances in the Executive Orders' wide-ranging, all-encompassing, and ambiguous 'pause' of critical funding that are not,” but given the apparent confidence from the White House that the spending freeze will pass legal muster, only time will tell how this confrontation ultimately concludes.
A federal judge granted an injunction Friday against President Donald Trump's spending freeze for woke programs, The Hill reported. Attorneys general from 22 states and Washington, D.C., filed a motion for an immediate injunction.
The Office of Management and Budget issued a memo Monday night demanding that federal agencies halt federal aid and grants if there was a misalignment of values with the Trump administration. The attorneys general sued to stop the administration from doing so.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell agreed that the edict would likely be thrown out and thus granted the injunction. "Are there some aspects of the pause that might be legal and appropriate constitutionally for the Executive to take?" the Obama-appointed judge asked rhetorically in his opinion.
"The Court imagines there are, but it is equally sure that there are many instances in the Executive Orders’ wide-ranging, all-encompassing, and ambiguous ‘pause’ of critical funding that are not. The Court must act in these early stages of the litigation under the ‘worst case scenario’ because the breadth and ambiguity of the Executive’s action makes it impossible to do otherwise," McConnell wrote.
Earlier in the week, Trump rescinded the order amid the legal action. However, McConnell noted that he believed the withdrawal "was in name only" because White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt promised that the underlying intention to freeze funding would remain.
The judge said the administration may have rescinded the memo "simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts. The substantive effect of the directive carries on," McConnell wrote.
The judge's order means that the administration may not proceed with directly cutting funding or implementing the OMB memo. The current injunction is temporary to allow further scrutiny based on the states' lawsuit.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is a longtime nemesis of Trump and led the states' lawsuits, was happy about the ruling. "I will keep fighting to protect essential services like childcare services that millions of Americans depend on," she posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Friday.
"The rule of law is not subject to the whims of the president," James added. Although James may be celebrating now, the fight is far from over.
According to Fox Business News, this memo was just a small portion of Trump's agenda to starve wokeism of federal funding. Trump has issued other orders to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at several government agencies to rid them of the rot.
Vice President J.D. Vance called DEI a "scandal that the president has stopped." Vance was speaking to Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures about Trump's most recent comments blaming woke hiring practices for a crash between a Black Hawk helicopter and a commercial airline this week that killed 67 people.
"We have to have our smartest people. It doesn't matter what they look like, how they speak, who they are," Vance said, echoing Trump.
"What matters is intellect, talent. The word 'talent.' They have to be talented geniuses. We can't have regular people doing that job. They won't be able to do it," he added about the aviation industry.
Trump was elected because of his hardline stance against wokeism and the problems it creates when merit is ignored. While the judge blocked one of Trump's battlegrounds for this fight, he shows no signs of backing down from the larger war against it.
Meta agreed to settle a lawsuit Wednesday with President Donald Trump over his 2021 suspension on its social media platforms, the Daily Caller reported. The parent company of Instagram and Facebook will pay Trump $25 million after it deplatformed him following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Meta spokesman Andy Stone said the company will pay $22 million dollars toward Trump's presidential library and give the remainder to the other plaintiffs for their legal expenses. Trump was suspended from the platforms for his supposed role in the Jan. 6 attack.
He was permanently banished from the platforms as of June 2021. "We are today announcing new enforcement protocols to be applied in exceptional cases such as this, and we are confirming the time-bound penalty consistent with those protocols which we are applying to Mr. Trump’s accounts," a statement from Facebook said at the time.
"Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump’s suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules, which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols. We are suspending his accounts for two years, effective from the date of the initial suspension on January 7 this year," it said.
Trump initiated lawsuits not long after the first suspension. His accounts were later restored in February 2023, and Meta announced that it would dispense with the "heightened suspension penalties" on Trump's accounts in July 2024.
Meta, Google, X, and other private tech companies are allowed to moderate content under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. However, many feel that they are not acting in the "good faith" required as they target Trump and other conservatives.
Trump has vowed to pursue these companies, so perhaps it's no coincidence that Zuckerberg has done an about-face since Trump's election. In November, Zuckerberg dined with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, the Associated Press reported.
The pair likely hashed out the settlement terms that came this week. Meta also donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg had a prominent seat for the president's swearing-in earlier this month.
Notably, Trump was thrown off Twitter around the same time, and Elon Musk, the CEO of the platform now called X, also appeared at the inauguration. He was joined by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, signaling a better relationship between the GOP administration and Big Tech.
The winning continues for Trump as he recently received another settlement from ABC News. The network agreed to $15 million for Trump's library following incorrect remarks suggesting that Trump was found civilly liable for raping E. Jean Carroll.
Fox News reported that CBS News may soon settle Trump's $10 billion lawsuit over election interference for selectively editing a 60 Minutes interview in favor of his opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris. A preview of the interview that aired on Face the Nation showed Harris answer a question in her usual word salad.
When the segment aired on the show, her original answer was cut from the program. Producers then spliced in a later remark that sounded like a better answer, thus giving Harris an edge over Trump with unsuspecting viewers.
BREAKING: CBS News is now in settlement talks with President Trump to pay for the election interference they committed when they deceptively edited Kamala Harris's interview to make her look good.
They will pay MILLIONS!
Trump can't stop winning.
pic.twitter.com/auardejZYn— George (@BehizyTweets) January 31, 2025
Trump is finally winning against his partisan and unscrupulous opponents. He's not only made the most spectacular political comeback with his election as president, he's also notching victories against his enemies in Big Tech and the media.
ESPN host Stephen A. Smith is looking like a good choice for democrats in 2028 based on a surprising new poll, the UK Daily Mail reported. With just 2% support, Smith is more popular than other establishment choices.
The polling firm McLaughlin & Associates asked 1,000 people who vote in general elections about who they'd choose as the Democratic candidate. The results were predictable, with former Vice President Kamala Harris receiving the top spot with 33%.
However, what was shocking is that Smith outpaced others like Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. Both received just 1% of the vote in the hypothetical matchup.
NEW - 2028 Democratic Primary Poll
🔵 Harris 33%
🔵 Buttigieg 9%
🔵 Newsom 7%
🔵 Aoc 6%
🔵 Shapiro 3%
🔵 Walz 3%
🔵 Stephen A. Smith 2%McLaughlin #C - 1/27
— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) January 30, 2025
The poll asked respondents, "Thinking ahead to the 2028 Democratic primary election for President, if that election were held today among the following candidates, for whom would you vote?" After 2024, it's clear Democrats need a strong candidate if they hope to stage a comeback in 2028.
Unfortunately, even with 33% for Harris, it's clear that the stench of that loss hangs heavily on the Democratic Party and the 2024 ticket. Her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, only received one more point than Smith, pulling just 3% of the vote.
It's no surprise that Smith's name showed up on the poll, as he has previously suggested that he has political aspirations. Smith has also become outspoken about the reasons Democrats lost and has been just about the only voice on the left to do so.
Fox News reported Smith's first crack at a postmortem came during an interview on The Will Cain Show just two days after the election. "It’s such a strong tilt to the progressive left where we are talking about transgender issues and culture wars and identity politics and all of this stuff," Smith said.
"We are sick of all of that. That makes total, total sense to me, and I’m good with it, even though I didn’t vote for [Trump]. I’m not as taken aback and feeling like nothing but gloom and doom, and the world is coming to an end because the person I voted for didn’t win," Smith added.
It wasn't just post-Election Day regrets for Smith. The ire of the First Take host bubbled up to the surface during a Friday's panel discussion on Real Time with Bill Maher.
Smith ranted about the way the party replaced then-President Joe Biden with Harris. "Kamala Harris, who didn’t resonate during the primaries in 2020, couldn’t even get to Iowa, suddenly is the Democratic nominee, then you roll up to the convention in Chicago and everybody is like ‘She’s a rockstar!’ So it’s like ‘How’d that happen?" Smith said.
"Yes I voted for her, a lot of people voted for her, but in the end, we end up feeling like damn fools. Because we supported it, we fell for the 'okiedoke' as they say. If you had a primary, the likelihood is she would not have been the Democratic nominee," Smith added.
Stephen A Smith feels like a damn fool for voting for Kamala Harris and declares she would have not been the Democrat nominee for president if a primary was held:
SAS: "So Kamala Harris - who didn't resonate during the primaries in 2020, couldn't even get to Iowa - suddenly is… pic.twitter.com/cQzLrMIILU— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) January 25, 2025
Smith said the quiet part out loud about why Democrats lost while those in the establishment are focused on bashing Trump. He's at the bottom of the pile for now, but it's a significant spot considering that the establishment candidates have never taken an honest look at themselves.
Ryan Michael "Reily" English was arrested Monday after showing up at the U.S. Capitol Monday with knives and Molotov cocktails, the Post Millennial reported. The Massachusetts man allegedly targeted some of President Donald Trump's newly confirmed Cabinet members before settling on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
Shortly after 3 p.m. on Monday, English approached a Capitol Police Officer with an unusual admission that he had knives and incendiary devices. "I’d like to turn myself in," he told the officer.
A search of his person turned up a folding knife and two 50 mL bottles of vodka, each topped with a cloth soaked in hand sanitizer and tucked into his jacket pockets. English also had a lighter on him at the time.
His vehicle contained other knives, Molotov cocktails, and a gray sweatshirt, which the strips of fabric for the toppers were cut from. English settled on killing Bessent, who was confirmed that day as Trump's Treasury Secretary, despite initially setting his sights on others.
English left home Sunday, bound for Washington, D.C. with ill intent. He was intent on murdering "'Nazi' Secretary of Defense, Peter Hegseth, and/or the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and/or burning down the Heritage Foundation," the affidavit said.
"These actions were specifically to 'depose' these political offices and send a message," the document added. However, after seeing on Reddit that Bessent was about to be confirmed that day, English changed his plans.
"Originally, English’s thoughts were to use the small bottles of vodka to start fires and later to wrap them in rags soaked in alcohol, light them and throw them at Bessent’s feet," the affidavit noted. The document also notes that "in the event English was able to get close enough to Bessent, English would have stabbed him with the knife that English brought from home."
English understood that he "would have to kill, at least, three US Capitol Police Officers to get to Bessent and kill him," the legal filing went on. He knew carrying out this plan would put him "in grave danger and expressed acceptance and content with the possibility of suicide by cop" and proceeded anyway.
English is being held for violations including "Unlawful Receipt, Possession, and/or Transfer of a Firearm" and "Carrying a Firearm, Dangerous Weapon, Explosive, or Incendiary Device on the Grounds of the Capitol." As bad as this is, it's clear it could have been much worse.
English turned himself in before he could hurt anyone, which was a relief. However, evidence found on him indicates that he was headed down a path that could have changed the course of American history.
A chilling note was recovered from English's back pocket that had the fatalistic tone of a kamikaze. Although it's unclear who the recipient is, it appears English was ready to unleash harm on officials even if it meant death for him.
"Judith dear god I am so sorry. You must understand I can feel myself dying slowly b/c of my heart. This is terrible but I cant do nothing while nazis kill my sisters. I love you," English reportedly scribbled on a receipt.
"This is awful. Im so sorry. I love u. Please stay alive and heal. you can. you are strong enough. F*ck them for pushing us so far. you dont deserve this. Im so sorry for lying and plotting and lying. Please survive," he ended the note, adding seven hearts.
There is a growing threat to officials in no small part because of the constant barrage of attacks from the media. English was thwarted, but it only takes one person to be successful at one of these attempts, and that's frightening.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a challenge to Mississippi's law that permanently strips voting rights from citizens who are convicted of certain felonies, Reuters reported. A lower court already rejected a lawsuit brought on the grounds that the law violates the Constitution.
In 2018, six men in Mississippi filed a class action lawsuit after they were barred from voting after serving their sentences. The lawsuit alleged that the 1890 provision was a violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
The Mississippi Constitution stipulates that the voting ban is for serious crimes ranging from rape and murder to bribery, forgery, arson, and theft. Still, the plaintiffs' attorneys argued that it caught too many minor crimes, such as "writing a bad check for $100 or stealing $250 worth of timber."
Many news outlets have pointed out that the law suffers from original sin since it was enacted during the Jim Crow era in 1890. However, it's clear it has nothing to do with race in modern times as the plaintiffs, convicted of receiving stolen property and grand larceny, were Black and White.
It's believed that the rule is rooted in the post-Civil War racism of the Jim Crow South. During the reconstruction period, Blacks were freed from slavery but still faced oppressive race-based laws, whether overtly or disguised underneath other provisions.
Mississippi adopted Section 241 to its constitution specifically to disenfranchise Black voters. Court filings note that it intentionally removed crimes considered "White crimes" while those considered at the time to be "Black crimes" were added to the provision.
Those who object to the law point to the disparity in the makeup of those who have been disenfranchised. In Mississippi, Black voters comprise 58% of the people barred from casting ballots, while they make up only 38% of the population of the state.
An initial review by a three-judge appeals panel determined that the law violated the Eighth Amendment. "Mississippi stands as an outlier among its sister states, bucking a clear and consistent trend in our nation against permanent disenfranchisement," the opinion penned by Judge James Dennis stated.
However, a second review by the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban in a 13-6 opinion in 2024. Notably, only the Magnolia State and Virginia still have laws that "permanently disenfranchise first-time offenders who were convicted of non-violent and non-voting-related felonies," the lawsuit notes.
Mississippi does have remedies for those who have been disenfranchised because of this provision. A person can receive a pardon from the governor or a vote by two-thirds of the state legislature to overturn the ban.
Although the legislature only successfully intervened 18 times between 2013 and 2018, it is nevertheless a remedy if the law is unfairly applied. The state also has the option of changing the law through the legislature.
As the filing noted, 26 states have opened voting rights to felons since 1974, USA Today reported. If this were merely about changing the law, that would be the remedy of choice.
However, it seems that opponents have attempted to make a statement about the origins of the law rather than the merits of it. Ironically, Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, implied there is such a thing as a "Black" and "White" crime as she contends that the offenses that trigger the voting ban "still work the very harm the 1890 convention intended - denying Black Mississippians the vote."
The provision is certainly a relic of the segregation era, which is a blight on American history. However, to say that a ban enforced for certain crimes is racist implies that people from a particular race are the only ones committing those crimes, and that is the most racist assumption of all.
President Donald Trump quickly rescinded an executive order by Joe Biden that Republicans said amounted to using government funding to register Democrat voters, and Republicans are now demanding documentation of actions taken under the order.
The outrage concerns executive order 14019, known as "Promoting Access to Voting," which ordered all federal agencies to submit plans to Biden's domestic policy advisor for how they planned to increase voter registration and participation. It was rescinded by Trump on day one of his administration.
The order also increased coordination with "approved, nonpartisan third-party organizations" in voter registration drives.
But Republicans argued that the approved groups were anything but nonpartisan.
Republican lawmakers want to know more about actions taken under 14019, and they are insisting that records be turned over.
"I’m glad to see President Trump is already taking steps to enhance our election integrity," Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI) told the Washington Examiner. "As chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I sent letters to the executive branch agencies that were suspected of violating the law demanding the preservation of documents related to Executive Order 14019. We look forward to receiving those documents from the previous administration and are eager to begin working with President Trump on this critical issue."
If a president can get away with ordering federal agencies to register voters using third party organizations that align with their own party's policies, election integrity in America might as well be dead.
That's why lawmakers can't just let it go and move on. They have to make sure nothing like this is allowed to happen again--in either party.
Subpoenas have been issued, and if Steil and his committee can prove the administration violated the Hatch Act and other such laws, they can send a clear warning against any further orders like this.
The efforts to uncover wrongdoing have been going on since May 2024, and are just now starting to get somewhere.
President of the conservative Capital Research Center think tank in Washington, D.C. Scott Walter alleged that Democrats would be up in arms if the same kind of executive order were signed by Trump.
"Imagine if, say, the Heritage Foundation drafted an executive order for President Trump to boost voter turnout, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives worked with the National Rifle Association to carry it out while ignoring subpoenas from Democratic-run committees," Walter said. "The mainstream media and Democratic leaders would be properly outraged. Americans deserve accountability now from bureaucrats who ignored the law to boost partisan turnout."
"Joe Biden spent his entire term turning the federal government into a get-out-the-vote machine for the Left and hiding the evidence," said FGA Federal Affairs Director Stewart Whitson, formerly FBI, said.
"Our lawsuit is ongoing, and we're pursuing those records so the American people can see the full scope of the Biden administration's attempts to use the federal government to change the outcome of an election," Whitson said.