This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
"President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill delivers on the commonsense agenda that nearly 80 million Americans voted for – the largest middle-class tax cut in history, permanent border security, massive military funding, and restoring fiscal sanity," explained White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
"The pro-growth policies within this historic legislation are going to fuel an economic boom like we've never seen before. President Trump looks forward to signing the One Big, Beautiful Bill into law to officially usher in the Golden Age of America."
Her comments came minutes after the House of Representatives passed 218-214 the "One Big Beautiful Bill."
"Again and again, Democrats tried to block historic tax relief, increased border security, higher wages, an expanded Child Tax Credit, No Tax on Tips, No Tax on Overtime, No Tax on Social Security, savings accounts for newborns, and so much more — but again and again, President Trump and Republicans fought and won for the American people," the statement said.
Signing is scheduled for Friday.
A major provision is one that strips "forced taxpayer funding of the Big Abortion industry."
"Defunding the abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, marks the greatest pro-life victory since the Dobbs decision. For the first time in history, Congress is halting forced taxpayer funding of Big Abortion in the Medicaid program for one year. This will save lives and strip over $500 million from Big Abortion's coffers. Combined with last week's Supreme Court decision empowering states to do the same, this represents tremendous progress toward achieving a decades-long goal that has long proved elusive," said SBA Pro-Life America chief Marjorie Dannenfelser.
""For decades, Big Abortion has siphoned off billions in tax dollars to prop up a scandal-ridden industry built on abortion and partisan politics. Planned Parenthood alone commits over 400,000 abortions a year while services like cancer screenings continue to plummet — all while pocketing over $2 million every day from taxpayers."
"The American people should not have to continue subsidizing the abortion industry – and now, thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill, they won't be," said Jennie Bradley Lichter, president of March for Life Action. "We joyfully anticipate President Trump signing this landmark legislation, which ensures that Americans' hard-earned tax dollars are not being used to prop up an industry whose business model is built on ending human lives, misleading pregnant women into thinking that abortion is their only option, and delivering substandard healthcare that they then charge to the government.
"For years the majority of Americans have said they reject this status quo. Women deserve better – America deserves better – and we thank President Trump, Speaker of the House Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader Thune, as well as all of the other pro-life champions in Congress who brought this bill across the finish line."
Carol Tobias, of National Right to Life, added, "We applaud pro-life members in Congress and pro-life leadership, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, for keeping their promises to the American people and delivering a bill that prevents taxpayer funds from subsidizing the abortion industry. For decades, Americans have made it clear that they do not want their tax dollars funding abortion. Today, Congress delivered.:"
Other organizations and groups had specific comments about how they are affected.
Consumer Energy Alliance President David Holt said, "This legislation unleashes affordable, reliable and cleaner energy for families and small businesses across the country, and gives the U.S. the edge in the global AI race by ensuring that always-on, reliable baseload power like nuclear and natural gas can be developed at speed and scale.
"Critically, this bill ensures offshore lease sales for Gulf of America and Alaska, which were intentionally delayed and drowned in red tape under the Biden Administration. That kept money out of the U.S. Treasury and Gulf States, and impeded the ability for companies to appropriately plan future energy development."
Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., said, of the "huge victory, "This legislation addresses many of the legislative priorities that President Trump promised to Americans during his campaign for President. Although the bill is not perfect, as none are, nor does it include several provisions of the original House version, I voted in favor of the largest tax cut in history, ending the Biden-era invasion of our southern border, and reducing wasteful and abusive spending of taxpayer dollars.
"Americans are tired of having a government that they are afraid of, and want a government they can be proud of. This Reconciliation package scales back the size and scope of federal agencies, cuts red-tape, brings more accountability, and cuts fraud, waste, and abuse. This bill is a good start, but Congress still has a lot of work to do; as we must continue to move back to a government that is small in size, limited in scope, and dedicated to preserving the rights and liberties of the American people.
"Last November, voters gave the President and Congress an unprecedented mandate to govern, and to tackle the very challenges that this bill addresses. With this historic legislation, Americans will be keeping more of their hard-earned money and paying less for food and fuel, while enjoying a level of safety not seen in years, as our southern border becomes more secure. With President Trump's signature, the Big, Beautiful, Bill will usher in the Golden Age of America and put our great country back on the path to prosperity."
Article III Project founder Mike Davis said, "This is an historic and monumental victory for President Trump—and real Americans in real America. And a major loss for Trump's opponents and doubters. Trump sealed his standing as one of America's most consequential presidents. And his second term is just getting started."
Democrats and other leftists universally blasted it.
"This is a direct attack on the health and well-being of low-income individuals and families," said Mara Youdelman of the National Health Law Program. "The bill cuts nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid. It will force states to slash eligibility and services, causing individuals to lose coverage and communities to lose the providers they depend on. And all of this is done to fund tax breaks for corporations and the ultrarich."
Joseph Geevarghese, of Our Revolution, organized originally by leftist Bernie Sanders, claimed, "Republicans have passed the most dangerous legislation of our lifetimes. This bill hands billionaires and corporations a trillion-dollar tax break, paid for by ripping health care from 17 million people, gutting funding for rural hospitals, slashing clean energy investments, and cutting food assistance for millions of children."
He charged it is the "largest transfer of wealth from working- and middle-class Americans to the ultra-wealthy in our nation's history."
The National Nurses United union went to extremes, claiming, "Lawmakers have effectively signed the death warrants for millions today. It will steal money from safety-net community hospitals and reproductive health care clinics, like Planned Parenthood. It will kick people off their health insurance. It will effectively punish people for getting sick or injured, making us all sicker and less healthy."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
At least partly because of the exhaustive promotions of transgenderism during Joe Biden's term in the White House, the fight over boys in girls sports and men in women's showers right now is white hot.
Lawsuit abound, confrontations happen regularly and fullscale battles are erupting over tax money being used for the unscientific ideology, as being male or female is embedded in the human body at the DNA level, and does not change.
Activists claim that boys who say they are girls have every right to be in competitions set up for girls because they believe they are girls, in apparent defiance of federal laws that require fairness for girls and women with their own events and President Donald Trump's order that the U.S. government recognizes two genders, male and female.
Some states, like Colorado, have gone so far into the agenda that officials discussed taking away the rights of parents who don't support children who may be coached by leftist teachers and counselors into the ideologies.
Now the Supreme Court is stepping in.
It has agreed to hear arguments in two cases in which extremists are seeking to overturn state laws that protect girls and women in their sports.
"Women and girls have overcome decades of discrimination to achieve a more equal playing field in many arenas of American life – including sports," explains a petition from the state of Idaho, which is in one of the cases.
"Yet in some competitions, female athletes have become bystanders in their own sports as male athletes who identify as female have taken the place of their female competitors – on the field and on the winners' podium."
In a stunning development that happened in just the past few days, the University of Pennsylvania signaled its own defeat in its transgender agenda.
The school has confirmed it is issuing apologies to women it forced to compete alongside a male swimmer, William "Lia" Thomas, and change with him in locker and shower rooms.
It further is removing the "wins" Thomas recorded in competition, and moving those who female swimmers who were in second place as a result.
The government also announced Tuesday that Penn is adopting strict definitions for male and female competitors under White House guidelines.
It happened after the Trump administration suspended $175 million in federal funding to the school, giving university officials an incentive to reach a resolution.
The Supreme Court will hear cases from West Virginia and Idaho.
West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey asked the court to hear a case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled against the state regarding its law protecting fairness in women's sports. And Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador is asking the high court to uphold his state's Fairness in Women's Sports Act after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stopped the law from going into effect.
"McCluskey said, "It's a great day, as female athletes in West Virginia will have their voices heard. The people of West Virginia know that it's unfair to let male athletes compete against women; that's why we passed this commonsense law preserving women's sports for women. We are confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Save Women's Sports Act because it complies with the U.S. Constitution and complies with Title IX. And most importantly: It protects women and girls by ensuring the playing field is safe and fair."
Labrador said, "Idaho's women and girls deserve an equal playing field. I am thrilled the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case. For too long, activists have worked to sideline women and girls in their own sports. Men and women are biologically different, and we hope the court will allow states to end this injustice and ensure men no longer create a dangerous, unfair environment for women to showcase their incredible talent and pursue the equal opportunities they deserve."
Kristen Waggoner, of the ADF, which is working with the states, said, "Women and girls deserve to compete on a level playing field. But activists continue their quest to erase differences between men and women by forcing schools to allow men to compete in women's sports
"This contradicts biological reality and common sense. We should be seeking to protect women's sports and equal opportunities, and West Virginia's and Idaho's women's sports laws accomplish just that."
The laws simply say males are not allowed in sports for females.
Just weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee was allowed to ban minors from receiving "treatments," for transgenderism, including chemicals and body-mutilating surgeries.
In Idaho, two men sued to be allowed into women's sports. In West Virginia, a parent sued on behalf of a male child being allowed in girls sports.
An eventual ruling will have vast impact on dozens of states where transgender activists have demanded to have their way with the state laws regarding access to sports.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A payment of an immediate $16 million plus another sum that is expected to push the total well beyond $30 million will be made by Paramount Global and CBS to President Donald Trump to settle his lawsuit charging the broadcast corporation with election interference.
What happened was CBS substituted a coherent answer from another part of the interview for a rambling, incoherent rant delivered by Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris during an interview during the heat of the 2024 campaign.
A report from Fox News said the $16 million will cover legal fees, costs of the case and contributions to a future presidential library, or charitable cause, to be determined by Trump alone.
"There is an anticipation that there will be another allocation in the mid-eight figures set aside for advertisements, public service announcements, or other similar transmissions, in support of conservative causes by the network in the future, Fox News Digital has learned. With these considerations, CBS would pay well in excess of the $15 million ABC paid Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit last year. Current Paramount management disputes the additional allocation."
Further, the report said, CBS will update its editorial standards to include a new rule: the prompt release of full, unedited transcripts of future presidential candidates' interviews," what has been referred to as the "Trump Rule."
Trump's legal action had demanded $20 billion over the election interference inflicted on his campaign by "60 Minutes."
"With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit. CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle. President Trump will always ensure that no one gets away with lying to the American People as he continues on his singular mission to Make America Great Again," an official with Trump's legal said told Fox.
The report said CBS "is not acknowledging any journalistic wrongdoing."
"The settlement will include a release of all claims regarding any CBS reporting through the date of the settlement, including the Texas action and the threatened defamation action," Paramount confirmed.
It was Bill Whitaker who asked Harris why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't "listening" to the Biden-Harris regime. When the clip first aired, Harris was widely mocked for a "word salad," often nonsensical rants for which she has become well-known.
Later, on primetime, her answer was different, and more concise.
Critics charged CBS with trying to help Harris in the election by shielding her from her own statements.
Fox reported, "It was widely believed that Paramount Global controlling shareholder Shari Redstone wanted to settle the suit ahead of a planned multi-billion-dollar merger with Skydance Media in hopes of preventing potential retribution by Trump's FCC, which has the authority to halt the transaction."
Trump, earlier, said, "They cheated and defrauded the American People at levels never seen before in the Political Arena. Kamala Harris, during Early Voting and, immediately before Election Day, was asked a question, and gave an answer, that was so bad and incompetent that it would have cost her many of the Votes that she ended up getting."
The FCC also was looking into whether CBS News violated the commission's "news distortion" policy.
ABC also settled a defamation lawsuit in December with then-President-elect Trump for $15 million, for a incident when George Stephanopoulos repeatedly and incorrectly asserted Trump had been found "liable for rape" in a civil trial last year. ABC additionally paid $1 million for President Trump's legal fees.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Former Clinton pollster Mark Penn warned on Wednesday that Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani of New York City poses a major threat to the Democratic Party.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist who campaigned on a slew of left-wing policies, including city-run grocery stores, a $30 minimum wage and has espoused anti-Israel views, won the New York City Democratic mayoral primary in June. Penn, on "America's Newsroom," said Mamdani's views are "extreme," but that he could become mayor if he manages to frame the race as him versus President Donald Trump, rather than competing with other mayoral candidates.
"This is a 9-1-1 moment for the Democratic Party in the sense that he's an anti-Semitic socialist. I think you have to throw both of those things at him because he has really not disavowed the global intifada. He has not really disavowed his comments that we should seize the means of production," Penn said. "He is perhaps the most extreme major candidate ever to win such a major office. And the system itself, the primary system, has been hijacked. There normally would have been a run-off, which would have then exposed his views rather than his smiling through the primaries."
"But I think that it's absolutely essential here that this not become Mamdani versus Trump," he continued. "That's his strategy. If he can get rid of the idea that there are two other candidates or maybe one other candidate opposing him and he's running against Trump, well, you know, he'll win that one."
Fox News host Dana Perino asked why Mamdani could succeed with that strategy.
"Because the Democrats got 68% of the vote in New York City. So therefore, I think Mamdani's point is to make it him against Trump, win 60, you know, 60-40 or something like that," Penn responded. "And the other Democratic candidates have to come in here and say, no, this is about the future of the city and how we save it and how we reduce crime, not defund it, how we bring business and jobs here, not run them away, and how we make Jews as comfortable as any other minority to live in New York City."
Mamdani, speaking to "Meet the Press" on Sunday, failed to directly condemn the controversial phrase "globalize the intifada," which is widely perceived as a call to violence against Jewish people.
"That's not language that I use. The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead the city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights," Mamdani said. "And ultimately that's what is the foundation of so much of my politics. The belief that freedom and justice and safety are things that to have meaning have to be applied to all people. And that includes Israelis and Palestinians as life."
ESPN's Stephen A. Smith also warned on "The Stephen A. Smith Show" Monday that Democrats will be electorally doomed if they embrace Mamdani's socialist politics.
"If the Democratic Party becomes him, you have no chance," Smith said.
"You might have a democratic socialist sprinkled here and there — but that ain't what America is! America is about capitalism!" he added. "America is about dollars and cents! America is about an economy, a flourishing economy, okay!?" he continued. "And you know what it's not about!? Free stuff."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
All Americans' freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution.
And journalists in America have heightened protections. Because they are journalists, they sometimes get privileged access to information. One corporation even insisted its reporters had a First Amendment "right" to be in the White House, even on Air Force One, a status that ordinary Americans do not have.
But there are limits, and it appears CNN may have crossed into forbidden territory.
That's according to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who responded to a question about the network's recent promotion of an app that lets phone users learn of the location of agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"We're working with the Department of Justice to see if we can prosecute them for that because what they're doing is actively encouraging people to avoid law-enforcement activities, operations. And we're gonna actually go after them and prosecute them … because what they're doing, we believe, is illegal," Noem said.
Multiple reports revealed how CNN recently profiled and promoted the ICEBlock telephone app. That alerts anyone using the software that ICE agents are nearby.
A report at Western Journal explained how that could be illegal.
President Donald Trump, on the topic of a prosecution, said, "It's OK with me."
He actually cited another reason for CNN to face the music.
"They may be prosecuted also for having given false reports on the attack in Iran," the president added.
Noem had noted earlier, "This sure looks like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a 500% increase in assaults against them. … If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
Border czar Tom Homan also noted, "I can't believe we live in a world where the men and women in law enforcement are the bad guys. It's already a dangerous job. … This is horrendous that a national media outlet would be out there trying to forecast law enforcement operations. I think DOJ needs to look at this. They're crossing that line."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Ford Motor Company reportedly has a Chinese company in charge of hiring workers at its new battery plant in Michigan, contradicting the auto giant's claims it will be an American-owned and operated project, while raising national security concerns.
Just the News reports: "The plant has generated significant controversy because of Ford's partnership with China-based Contemporary Amperex Technology Limited, known as CATL, which closely collaborates with the Chinese military and government. The U.S. Defense Department earlier this year marked CATL as a Chinese Military Company to warn American firms about the risks of doing business."
Republicans in Michigan's legislature have been critical of the Ford plant, saying the state government failed to adequately vet the project and Ford's partners in the project.
"From the outset of the corrupted 'deal' concocted and championed between Governor Whitmer, Ford, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) and China-based and Chinese Communist Party-tied (CCP) Contemporary Amperex Technology Limited (CATL) has been fast moving and in secret," Joseph Cella, former U.S. ambassador to Fiji and Director of the Michigan-China Economic Security Review Group told Just the News.
"In their haste, unconscionably, parties to this 'deal' performed no strict scrutiny or due diligence, defying the directives given by our national security and intelligence agencies to state and local governments and American corporations when dealing with China-based companies, jeopardizing our national security and taxpayer dollars."
In spite of controversies of Chinese-licensed tech and Republican efforts in Congress to strip tax subsidies from Joe Biden's green-projects agenda, Ford is driving ahead with the Michigan project called BlueOval Battery Park Michigan.
Ford defends its strategy to license technology from CATL, claiming it's an important step in re-shoring U.S. manufacturing. The actual battery being licensed by Ford, known as a lithium-iron-phosphate battery, was invented in America in the 1990s, but the company says at present, there's no way to produce them in the U.S. without Chinese know-how.
"How can we compete if we don't have this technology? Somebody has to take the lead to do this," Ford's vice president of technology platform programs and electric vehicles Lisa Drake told Axios. "I'm convinced this is the right thing to do for the United States."
On its website, Ford calls it an "historic first step" to increasing American competitiveness of in the worldwide EV market.
"An American automotive company is manufacturing – without relying on a foreign joint venture – LFP battery cells and battery packs domestically with American workers for American-assembled next-generation electric vehicles," the company states.
It also says the location will be "wholly owned and operated by Ford."
Despite that claim, job listings on job platforms such as LinkedIn and ZipRecruiter raise questions about whether the battery park is really independent from its Chinese partner.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
With Republican U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina announcing Sunday he won't seek reelection in 2026, Lara Trump, the daughter-in-law of President Donald Trump, is said to be strongly thinking about a run for that seat in Congress.
The report from NOTUS says Lara Trump, the former co-chair of the Republican National Committee during the 2024 presidential race and current Fox News host on Saturday night, is "seriously considering" a Senate run.
She previously had considered replacing Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio when the president selected the Rubio to be secretary of state.
"Certainly, the fact that my name has been mentioned among many other very qualified, highly regarded people as a potential fit for this," Lara Trump said of possible replacing Rubio in the Senate at the time.
"Yes, it's very intriguing, and I'm seriously considering it."
"She is so highly respected by women!" President Trump said of Lara in December. "I mean, even her workout routines are through the roof."
A poll taken in December showed seven of 10 Republicans in the Tar Heel State want Lara Trump in the Senate.
"The Victory Insights poll of North Carolina Republicans finds that 69% of them want the Republican National Committee Co-Chair to be their next senator, with just 11% preferring incumbent Thom Tillis," reported Florida Politics.
"Other Republicans weighing bids include current RNC chair Michael Whatley, freshman U.S. Representative and former Green Beret Pat Harrigan, as well as Representatives Dan Bishop and Richard Hudson, according to party operatives," reported DeepNewz.
NOTUS reported: "One RNC official pushed back on this, saying that Whatley is 'not actively considering a bid for the North Carolina Senate seat.'"
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman, says he's confident Republicans will hold the seat being vacated by Tillis.
"President Trump has won North Carolina three times, and the state's been represented by two Republican Senators for over a decade," Scott said, according to HuffPost.
"That streak will continue in 2026 when North Carolinians elect a conservative leader committed to advancing an agenda of opportunity, prosperity, and security."
As WorldNetDaily reported, just hours after voting no on advancing President Trump's "big, beautiful" bill and the president's vow to have him primaried, U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., announced Sunday he will not seek reelection.
"In Washington over the last few years, it's become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species," Tillis said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A barrage of uncontrolled backlash has been unleashed against a Christian bookstore whose operators objected to the town council posting a "Pride" flag above its window.
They requested that the promotion of the LGBT alternative lifestyle choices be removed because their aim "is solely to promote the Christian faith," and town officials agreed that was reasonable.
But promoters of the emblem of the leftist agenda revealed their tolerance level for those with differing beliefs: None.
According to a report at the Christian Institute, attackers branded the store "bigoted" and "homophobic" and complained that the flag actually was removed "in a sly way."
The Institute explained the fight happened in Derbyshire, United Kingdom, where officials on the Matlock town council have previously flown a number of flags up and down their main street.
Earlier the flag of St. George was provided. Also the Union Jack.
But when Pride flags appeared recently, officials at the Cornerstone Bookshop simply asked that the one above their window be taken down. Operators said they didn't want to be promoting homosexuality.
"The council did so without issue, but LGBT activists took offense," the Institute reported.
According to a report in the Guardian, "Townspeople and the local MP" are demanding the LGBT "standard" be put back in front of the Christian bookstore.
The report cited comments from Kate Bond, who expressed support for the Pride logo.
"I was just thinking it looked really good," she said. But then the single flag was taken down, and she said she suspected "homophobes."
"It's crazy. You just can't believe it. More than anything, what I'm bothered about is the fact that it's happened without anybody knowing about it. This sly little way it's been done, it's wrong somehow. If it's your idea to put them up, stand by it," she claimed.
The bookshop owner said, "We have to respect other people's views. But we didn't want the flag flying outside our shop.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has delivered a stunning blow to the activist judges at the district court level in the federal court system, those judges who sit at the entry level to the federal system: They likely have been exceeding the authority granted to them by Congress.
The fight is over literally dozens of universal injunctions, or nationwide injunctions, that have been delivered against the Trump administration by trial court judges who have positioned themselves to take over and make decisions for the executive branch.
The topics covered by those injunctions in just the first few months of President Donald Trump's second term include deportations, citizenship, budget cutting and many more.
The Supreme Court, considering the demands by the district judges to exceed their own authority, said, "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The court grants the government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the majority opinion of the court's 6-3 ruling.
Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined, and the leftists on the court collaborated on a dissent written by Sonia Sotomayor. Joining her were Justices Kagan and Jackson, the legal scholar who during her Senate confirmation hearings was incapable of defining "woman."
The ruling said, "The issue raised by these applications—whether Congress has granted federal courts authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive order—plainly warrants this court's review. On multiple occasions, and across administrations, the Solicitor General has asked the court to consider the propriety of this expansive remedy."
Now, with Trump in his second term, those injunctions have "increased."
And with that has the importance of the issue.
"The government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the district courts lacked authority to issue universal injunctions," the ruling said. "The issuance of a universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power. The Judiciary Act of 1789 endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over 'all suits . . . in equity,' and still today, this statute 'is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies.'
"This court has held that the statutory grant encompasses only those sorts of equitable remedies 'traditionally accorded by courts of equity' at our country's inception."
The wild orders by district judges – one demanded that the president turn jets already out of American airspace that were deporting illegal alien criminals around mid-flight – oblivious to the question of whether they would have enough fuel to return to their origination points – are simply "not sufficiently 'analogous' to any relief available in the court of equity in England at the time of the founding," the ruling said.
President Trump had appealed three lower court rulings preventing the executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens or migrants on temporary visas from taking effect.
The ruling focuses on the injunctions rather than the birthright citizenship issue because the administration asked the justices in Trump v. CASA to consider limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions that block policies across the entire country.
During oral arguments, Solicitor General John Saur highlighted the dozens of injunctions lower court judges have issued blocking executive policies since January.
The ruling is expected to hit hard at the leftist and anti-Trump agenda of activists judges, and affect a multiple of cases and fights now pending. And it will hit multiple issues. Recent reports confirmed that leftist activists at the state level were scheming to fight Trump in court even before he was elected.
The decision delivered partial stays to the injunctions at issue.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The House Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas to require testimony from former executives of the Democrat fundraising scheme Act Blue, which has raised billions of dollars for leftists over recent years.
The investigation focuses on allegations of fraud within that organization, which evidence already has shown sometimes took in hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals making thousands of separate donations – even though they were senior citizens on fixed incomes.
The congressional committee confirmed that chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, was joined by House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., to send subpoenas to ActBlue's Former Vice President of Customer Service Alyssa Twomey and an ActBlue Senior Workflow Specialist.
The documents order their appearances before the committees for depositions.
Suspected is that ActBlue took in fraudulent donations from domestic and foreign sources.
Twomey, formerly ActBlue's vice president of customer service, managed ActBlue's fraud-prevention team, the committee said.
"The Committees discovered that ActBlue weakened its fraud-prevention standards twice in 2024 despite knowledge of significant attempted fraud on the platform, including from foreign actors. Similarly, ActBlue's training guide for new fraud-prevention staff instructed employees to 'look for reasons to accept contributions' rather than assess potentially fraudulent donations with a skeptical eye," the committees announced.
The members of Congress told Twomey, "You are uniquely positioned to aid the Committees' oversight."
The letter explained Congress repeatedly has sought her voluntary testimony on the issues, but she, through attorney Danny Onorato, had insisted that Congress delay its investigation.
She was scolded for that.
"Onorato's request that the Committees 'withdraw [our] requests for transcribed interviews until the Department of Justice completes its investigation or clarifies its position with respect to our clients' amounts to a demand that the Committees forgo testimony that is potentially critical to our legislative oversight," the letter charged.
"Congress may set the terms of its own oversight, compelling testimony in a time, place, and manner of its own choosing. Federal courts have consistently held that witnesses may not 'impose [their] own conditions upon the manner of [congressional] inquiry.' That is because 'a witness does not have the legal right to dictate the conditions under which he will or will not testify' or 'to prescribe the conditions under which he may be interrogated by Congress.'"
"Mr. Onorato is wrong to claim that 'the Committees will not be prejudiced in any way' by his request to delay your testimony 'because President Trump directed that the Attorney General report the results of her investigation . . . within 180 days.'"
Such a demand, in fact, "risks preventing the Committees from adequately developing the factual record upon which to consider legislative reforms."
WND previously has reported on the scandal now enveloping ActBlue.
The committees are looking at accusations some of those donations have come in, illegally, from overseas sources.
During Joe Biden's time in office, the same committees called for information, but there was no response.
At the time, they demanded access to "Suspicious Activity Reports" related to money passing through ActBlue.
Steil also has pushing for the Secure Handling of Internet Electronic Donations (SHIELD) Act to set bars to foreign money being injected into American politics.
ActBlue has denied any wrongdoing.
Earlier, Comer explained, "We're investigating ActBlue the same way we investigated the Bidens. … We're starting with the suspicious activity reports — bank violations that flag financial crimes. And let me tell you, the evidence is overwhelming."