This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It was the 4 p.m. Eastern hour on a Friday, not the time one might find the president in the Oval Office taking questions from reporters in the last administration.
But President Trump used the time to sign his 200th executive order – this one changing the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, its name until the mid-20th century.
Trump, who said the original change to "Department of Defense" was "wokey," was accompanying by his new "secretary of war," Pete Hegseth, who said the change is in keeping with the "warrior ethos" that has come to the for at the Pentagon since January.
The executive order calls for the reference to change, but an official change of the federal department would have to go through Congress.
Just minutes after the change, the War Department posted a promotional video from its new X account:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Even as a number of judges at the entry level of the federal court system, the district courts, have complained in anonymous interviews with NBC that they don't like it when the Supreme Court overturns their politically driven decisions, a member of that high court is warning they are supposed to be playing by the rules that already are established – by voters, through Congress and the president.
It was in a series of interviews with federal judges whose identities were concealed that NBC reported they were unhappy that their decisions were not followed by the Supreme Court.
Some of those district court decisions, however, have clearly pushed political agendas in opposition to the president, on things like national security, international affairs, spending, social ideologies, and more. One radical judge even tried to order jets deporting illegal alien criminals turned around mid-flight to return the criminals to the U.S., without an acknowledgement that those jets could have run out of fuel before completing a return.
Now it is Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett who explained judges' personal beliefs should not enter into the equation when decisions are made. Those decisions should be based on the laws that exist.
Those district judges, she said, are "not kings."
She wrote, in an article for the Free Press, that judges are "referees" who determine, or should be determining, that everyone is following the rules.
"We judges don't dispense justice solely as we see it; instead, we're constrained by law adopted through the democratic process," she said.
She said of the judiciary, "Like Americans more generally, judges hold diverse views about the values by which a just society should live. Yet under the Constitution, the choice between these competing views is made by citizens in the democratic process, not by judges settling disputes.
"On the bench, we must suppress our individual beliefs in deference to those that have prevailed in the enacted law. Our job is to protect the choices that citizens have made, even when we disagree with them…"
Judges should be deciding "whether people have played by the rules rather than what the rules should be."
She cited her own personal objections to the death penalty.
"For me, death penalty cases drive home the collision between the law and my personal beliefs. Long before I was a judge – before I was even a member of the bar – I co-authored an academic article expressing a moral objection to capital punishment," she said. "Because prisoners sentenced to death almost always challenge their sentences on appeal, the tension between my beliefs and the law is not one that I could avoid as a young law clerk, much less now as a judge.
"The people who adopted the Constitution didn't share my view of the death penalty, and neither do all my fellow citizens today," she added "If I distort the law to make it difficult for them to impose the death penalty, I interfere with the voters' right to self-government."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump is appealing the E. Jean Carroll case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The move was confirmed as his lawyers filed an application to the high court asking for a 60-day extension of a deadline to file a petition.
And it comes after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider a panel ruling against Trump.
"President Trump intends to seek review by this court of significant issues arising from the Second Circuit's erroneous decision," his lawyers explained in a filing appearing on the court's public docket.
According to a report in the Washington Examiner, the fight with Carroll, who has exhibited some uniquely odd behavior as she promotes her case, is among the few disputes unresolved after a long list of lawfare cases brought by Democrat activists against Trump have faded into history.
It is a $5 million judgment based on a jury decision that claimed Trump was liable for sexually abusing Carroll some 30 years ago, and he defamed her by denying the accusation back in 2022.
Trump has repeatedly denied Carroll's claims, explaining that the "encounter" never happened.
The jury did not find Trump liable for rape.
Trump's appeals of the May 2023 judgment at the 2nd Circuit argued that the trial was tainted by allowing evidence that improperly influenced the jury.
The Supreme Court hasn't made an announcement on the deadline extension yet, but if granted, would allow a petition for writ of certiorari to be filed up until November 10.
Another judgment against Trump involving Carroll already is on appeal. That is an $83.3 million verdict for Trump's further statements that he never assaulted Carroll.
There are online videos revealing some of Carroll's antics, videos that the judges reviewing her claims did not allow the jury to see:
And there was the promise from a Trump lawyer that Carroll will see not a dime of the "judgments" as they were initially delivered.
Online resources explain Carroll also has made similar assault claims against other men, including then-CBS CEO Les Moonves, who, like Trump, has denied her allegations.
Carroll since has written a book about her allegations against Trump, and repeatedly has gone on television and other shows to promote her writings, and herself.
The trial judge who heard both cases, Lewis A. Kaplan, was accused of wrongdoing in his decision to allow two other people who accused Trump of sexual abuse to testify on behalf of Carroll. Trump has denied those unproven claims as well.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor Fani Willis, who is suspected of coordinating with Democrats and officials in Joe Biden's leftist administration to assemble what essentially was an organized crime claim against President Trump, now has been ordered to hunt harder for records of her work.
That case turned into a massive embarrassment for her, and the entire Fulton County prosecutor's office, as she was revealed to have had an ongoing affair with a man she hired to assemble the anti-Trump case for her.
Further, appeals court judges threw her, and her office, off the case, and it's been dying in the clerks' offices since.
Now a report at Fox News explains that Willis has been ordered by a court in her state to do a "new search for records related to her criminal case" against Trump.
The court had found that her search methods were inadequate.
It is government watchdog Judicial Watch that has been insisting she come clean on her work, specifically whether and how much she coordinated her case with the January 6 select committee, a partisan panel assembled by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to publicize accusations against Trump over the January 6, 2021, protest turned riot at the Capitol.
Willis also is suspected of coordinating her lawfare against Trump with Jack Smith, a special counsel who was entrusted by Democrats with two lawfare cases against Trump. Both of his failed.
The order is just another in a string of setbacks for Willis, who was ordered a few months ago to pay some $22,000 in legal fees to Judicial Watch after she declined to fully respond to the organization's opening records requests.
Judicial Watch spokesman Tom Fitton, according to the report, said his group has been digging into Willis' communications "because he believes the district attorney improperly coordinated with the federal government to charge Trump over the 2020 election."
"The lawsuit is about any collusion and collaboration with Congress and the Justice Department, Jack Smith, and we haven't seen the documents, but they show that there has been because their very existence shows that they were talking to them," Fitton said.
Fitton said the coordination among the various Democrat operatives would show Willis' indictment was a "political operation," not any "honest" process.
The judge's new order noted Willis failed "to address searches of devices belonging to former Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade and chief investigator Michael Hill, both of whom were integral to the investigation into Trump's alleged subversion of the 2020 election in Georgia."
The judge noted he found "omissions" in Willis' statements.
Willis charged Trump and 18 co-defendants in August 2023 with racketeering and other violations over the 2020 election, but the case fell apart because of plea deals and dismissed charges. Ultimately, the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Willis from the case, finding her private romantic relationship with Wade presented a conflict of interest. The case has been shelved indefinitely since the ruling, the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Rosie O'Donnell is now apologizing for falsely claiming last week's shooter at the Catholic school in Minneapolis was a "Republican, MAGA person" and "white supremacist."
Her original video in the wake of the horror at the Annunciation Catholic Church and School that killed two children and wounded 18 others has the actress stating: "Saw about the Minnesota shooting, and it brought me right back to Columbine in 1999 when I just could not get it through my head that students in America were shooting each other in schools," she asserted on TikTok.
"This was a church inside a Catholic school. And what do you know? This was a white guy, Republican, MAGA person, what do you know? White supremacist."
Now the fierce critic of President Donald Trump is admitting she "messed up" and did not do her "due diligence."
"I know a lot of you were very upset about the video I made before I went away for a few days," O'Donnell began.
"I didn't go online and haven't seen them 'til today, but you are right. I did not do my due diligence before I made that emotional statement, and I said things about the shooter that were incorrect."
"I assumed, like most shooters, they followed a standard M.O. and had standard, you know, feelings of … you know, NRA loving kind of gun people," O'Donnell continued.
"Anyway, the truth is, I messed up, and when you mess up, you fess up. I'm sorry, this is my apology video, and I hope it's enough."
In reality, the shooter has been identified as Robert Westman, a transgender who legally changed his name to Robin Westman in 2017 with the support of his mother.
He was not a Trump-supporting MAGA person, as one of the messages on the magazine of his gun stated, "Kill Donald Trump."
O'Donnell is now living in Ireland, having fled the U.S. due to her loathing of President Trump.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kamala Harris still will be getting special protection from government security officers, even after President Donald Trump canceled a special extension of federal protection by the Secret Service that Joe Biden had ordered.
Former vice presidents get six months of protection, ordinarily, after they leave office, but Biden issued a secret order extending protection for Harris by a year.
Then, just as she was set to launch a book- and self-promoting tour that involves many stops across the country, Trump ordered that extension canceled.
Now, a report in the Washington Examiner explains the California Highway Patrol will take over those special extended protection duties, and they will be funded by California taxpayers.
"Harris's Secret Service had been atypically expanded by former President Joe Biden beyond the six months after leaving office, typically allocated to former vice presidents. After Trump ended the protection in a memorandum on Thursday, California officials scrambled to add new security for Harris," the report said.
There's been no confirmation yet from Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom, who would have to approve.
"Our office does not comment on security arrangements," Newsom spokeswoman Izzy Gordon said.
The report noted there could be complications for Harris regarding "her upcoming" tour. She's promoting a book about how she lost the 2024 presidential election after spending well over a billion dollars in three months.
President Trump's instructions to the Secret Service were: "You are hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by Executive Memorandum, beyond those required by law, for the following individual, effective September 1, 2025: Former Vice President Kamala D. Harris,"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Another Department of Justice worker has been dismissed for attacking federal law enforcement, by messaging if not physically.
Earlier, Sean Charles Dunn, a DOJ paralegal, was canned after throwing a sub sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agents.
He was accused of felony assault but a grand jury in the leftist enclave of Washington declined to indict, so prosecutors came back with a misdemeanor charge that now is pending.
But he lost his position immediately.
Now it's happened a second time, with constitutional expert Jonathan Turley commenting on the firing of Elizabeth Baxter, another intern, who was fired by Attorney General Pam Bondi "for abusive conduct toward federal officers."
"Baxter shouted profanities and flipped off a member of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., on her way to work. The termination raises legitimate free speech issues, but Baxter may have crossed the line by recounting the abuse at work," he said.
Baxter's case is different from Dunn's in that she's not accused of any assault.
However, he explained, "According to the New York Post, after arriving at a DOJ building on the morning of August 18, Baxter bragged to a security guard about how she had just made the gesture at the Metro Center Metro Stop. She also recounted how she told the guardsman, 'F–k the National Guard.'"
Her original "protest" was not at work, or during work hours and DOJ guidelines affirm protection for expressing opinions on political subjects and candidates.
But her employment rules also state she may not: "Participate in political activities (to include wearing political buttons) while on duty; while wearing a uniform, badge or insignia of office; while in a government occupied office or building; or while using a government owned or leased vehicle."
Turley explained Baxter's insistent on repeating the "protest" to a security officer took her actions "into the workplace."
"Not only did security footage capture her flipping off the National Guardsman and exclaiming, 'F–k you!' but she is also seen demonstrating to a department security guard how she held up her middle finger. She boasted to the security guard that she hated the National Guard and that she told them to 'F–k off!'" he wrote.
She could challenge the action, he noted, but, "She elected to repeat the political expression inside the federal building to at least one other federal employee during office hours. As such, she destroyed much of the constitutional protection afforded to her earlier statements and demonstration."
According to the Washington Examiner, "DOJ spokesman Gates McGavick praised the termination on Friday, writing in a post on X, 'if you don't support law enforcement, [Attorney General Pam Bondi's] DOJ might not be a good fit.'"
Bondi's termination notice said Baxter was booted "immediately" because of "inappropriate conduct."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Friday signed into law the state's new congressional districts.
State lawmakers assembled the new map in order to give Republican candidates a better position in at least another five districts, any one of which could be needed for the party to maintain the majority of the U.S. House in 2026..
The redistricting has prompted California Gov. Gavin Newsom to try to redistrict his state, already sporting Democrat over-representation, to give his party additional power following the next congressional vote.
However, he's having to go to statewide voters, at an expense tallied in the millions, because he wants to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting committee that the state has.
A report at the Washington Examiner explained the state's redistricting sparked outrage from Democrats, whose party is falling rapidly from favor of the American voters after they doubled down on their transgender, green and open borders ideologies after their catastrophic loss in the 2024 presidential election.
In Texas, Democrat lawmakers, in fact, fled the state for weeks trying to derail the GOP-majority plan, and failed.
Abbott said, "Today, I signed the One Big Beautiful Map into law. This map ensures fairer representation in Congress."
The Democrats inside the state have responded with lawsuits, hoping they will find favor with some leftist judge, as their party repeatedly has done in battles with President Donald Trump.
"This isn't over — we'll see these clowns in court," claimed Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court ruled Friday that most of President Trump's many tariffs on other nations are illegal and unconstitutional, striking down the policies.
As Fox News reported, the ruling stated:
"We affirm the CIT's holding that the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA's text. We also affirm the CIT's grant of declaratory relief that the orders are invalid as contrary to law."
The IEEPA is the International Emerge Economic Powers Act. While the law gives the president broad authorities, the court ruled, they do not include the power to impose tariffs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., was divided in the ruling, 7-4, and says Trump's tariffs can continue until Oct. 14. In the meantime the White House is expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
President Trump vehemently opposed and decried the ruling on social media, saying it would be "a total disaster" if the tariffs were to be stopped.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats in one Georgia County are facing charges they are threatening democracy for their persistent refusal to seat properly nominated and appointed Republican members to a county board.
And now they are going to be fined $10,000 per day, payable to the court every day, which of course will be coming from the county's taxpayers.
The fight is in Fulton County where the commissioners have refused to allow two Republican nominees to take part in the county Board of Elections "as required by law," according to a report in the Gateway Pundit.
It is Democrats on the board of commissioners who over and over have refused to seat "the lawfully nominated Republican Party nominees Jason Frazier and Julie Adams.
The Democrats claim the two GOP members are "election deniers," but the facts show the reality. It was during the 2020 presidential election, then-Board of Elections members Mark Wingate and Kathleen Ruth declined to certify the election results because they were denied access to any chain of custody documents.
"Wingate testified during the 2024 disbarment hearing of former DOJ Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark that when he inquired how Fulton County conducted signature verification when the county's brand new BlueCrest sorter machines were inoperable, he was told 'we didn't do any [signature verification].'"
The report noted, "This morning, Superior Court Judge David Emerson found 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the Board of Commissioners has failed to comply with the court's order' and has held the Board in civil contempt. Beginning on Friday, August 29th at 12 p.m., the Board will be fined $10,000 for every day that they fail to appoint the Republican Party's members to the Board of Elections. He further noted that the fine 'is to be paid daily' but stopped short of holding the respondents in criminal contempt."
The ruling found the Democrats have been "stubbornly litigious and acted in bad faith."
WND previously reported that the judge had tried scolding the Democrats to get them to follow the law.
The judge pointed out the Democrats had created a new definition for the word "shall."
The law says that Democrats shall nominate two candidates, Republicans two and the county a fifth to the elections board.
However, Democrats on the board of county commissioners decided they didn't like the opinions of the two Republicans nominated, so they were going to ignore the law and they told the GOP to come up with other names, names of individuals that the Democrats would like.
Emerson demolished their ideology:
"The court … notes that the appointment statute contains no provision to support the respondents' position that it should have the power to veto any given nominee and force the county chairperson to submit other nominees. There is nothing in the statute to support the BOC theory that the county commissioners can veto the chairperson's nominees other than for failure of the nominee to meet the two qualifications and one restriction (be a county resident, be an elector, and cannot be a holder of elected office).
""The court finds that the 'shall' as used here is mandatory, and the BOC does not have discretion to disapprove an otherwise qualified nominee. The court grants the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus directing the BOC to comply with the statute: The board shall appoint the two members as nominated by the county executive committee chairperson. Those nominees are Jason Frazier and Julie Adams."
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who has testified as an expert on the Constitution before Congress and even represented members in court, said it was a loss for Democrats who now "have lost their effort to block two Republican commissioners from sitting on Fulton County's Board of Elections because of their political views."
He said significant was "not just the raw partisanship but the utter lack of legal authority of Democrats to refuse to recognize the duly selected GOP members."
One of the radicals opposing the Democratic process through which nominees are selected, Commissioner Marvin Arrington, had claimed, "I think the Republican party ought to take a look at their people and not nominate people that are on the far right and nominate people that are in the center."
Turley noted that, "While self-proclaimed defenders of democracy often seem to have no qualms about curtailing democratic choices from ballot cleansing to jurisdiction flight, this is particularly raw and outrageous. There is no law supporting this action and the state law is clear on the need to seat the GOP commissioners."