#constitutional
32 entries with this tag
Months After Gutting the Voting Rights Act So Elected Officials Could Redraw Districts However They Please, the Supreme Court Handed Them the Other Half of the Power Over Elections — Clearing the Trump Administration to Let States Screen Voter Rolls With SAVE, a Federal Database So Flawed That More Than One in Five Texans It Flagged as Noncitizens Turned Out to Be Citizens — Over the Three Liberal Justices' Dissent That Disenfranchising "Even a Few Lawful Voters" Outweighs the Government's "Nonexistent" Harm
On September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court and cleared the way for the Trump administration to let states use SAVE — the Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database — to check the citizenship of registered voters before the November midterms. The order, on the emergency docket, drew a public dissent from the three liberal justices. The Court limited the ruling to "individualized" citizenship checks and noted that federal law still bars mass purges close to Election Day, reserving that larger question for a case next term. But the tool it revived is notoriously inaccurate, and it fails in one direction: it disproportionately flags naturalized citizens as ineligible. When Texas ran its voter rolls through SAVE, it identified 2,724 "potential noncitizens" — and then confirmed that at least 578 of them, more than one in five, were in fact U.S. citizens. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented that "the harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences" — noting there is no meaningful noncitizen-voting problem for the database to solve. Seen alongside the Court's April decision gutting the Voting Rights Act to free legislators to gerrymander at will, this ruling completes a pattern: having let elected officials decide how voters are grouped, the Court is now letting the political branches decide, through a faulty database, who counts as a voter at all.
Trump's Ban of CNN Backfired Into a Rare Show of Press Solidarity: The Five Networks in the White House TV Pool — Fox News Among Them — Refused to Replace CNN and Suspended Televised Pool Coverage of the President Rather Than Help Him Sideline It, Leaving Him Without Independent TV Coverage on the Eve of His U.N. Trip While CNN, MS NOW, and Politico Sue Over the First Amendment
On Monday, September 21, 2026, the White House television press pool suspended its coverage of Donald Trump — a rare, coordinated act of protest against his ban of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico three days earlier. The pool is the five-network consortium (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, and CNN) that takes turns covering the president's events on behalf of all outlets. CNN was scheduled to run Monday's pool coverage and accompany Trump to New York for the United Nations General Assembly; when the White House barred CNN from performing that duty, the other networks refused to replace it. Fox News' Washington bureau chief Bryan Boughton — the acting chair of the TV pool consortium — announced that "the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the President," and that "there will be no replacement pool." That Fox, Trump's friendliest network, stood with CNN rather than help the White House route around the ban is the most striking part. All five networks issued a joint statement: "The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting." CNN, MS NOW, and Politico announced they are filing a First Amendment lawsuit. Trump set out to punish outlets whose coverage he dislikes; he ended up with no independent TV pool coverage of himself on the way to address the world, a unified press corps rebuking him, and a lawsuit — an own-goal on top of an abuse.
Trump Declared Three Major News Organizations — CNN, MS NOW, and Politico — "Banned" From the White House "Effective Immediately," Explicitly Because He Dislikes Their Coverage, Which He Called "FICTION and LIES," and Threatened the New York Times and Washington Post Next — a Viewpoint-Based Purge of the Press That Federal Courts Have Already Ruled the White House Cannot Do
On September 18, 2026, Trump announced on Truth Social that he was banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House "effective immediately," declaring that the three outlets "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America." He threatened to extend the bans to others, singling out the New York Times and Washington Post as "crummy." The White House did not immediately clarify the scope — whether the outlets' reporters would lose their credentials entirely or be shut out of briefings, events, and the press pool. But the stated basis was explicit and disqualifying: the outlets are being punished for the content of their coverage. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination, and it runs directly into settled law. In the 1977 case Sherrill v. Knight, the D.C. Circuit held that the White House cannot arbitrarily deny a press pass to a bona fide journalist, and as recently as 2025 a federal court ruled the administration could not bar the Associated Press from covering events open to the press because it disliked the AP's editorial choices. A president gets to dispute reporting he considers wrong; he does not get to decide which news organizations are allowed to cover him based on whether their coverage pleases him. This is the government choosing the press — the precise inversion of a free one.
When a Republican Congressman Forced a Vote to Impeach Defense Secretary Hegseth for Unlawfully Waging War on Iran, the Republican Speaker Canceled Congress's Last Scheduled Day and Sent the Whole House Home Early for a Seven-Week Recess — Punting the Vote Past the Midterms to Spare Vulnerable Members From Having to Say, on the Record, Where They Stand on Hegseth
On September 15, 2026, Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, introduced articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, accusing him of "high crimes and misdemeanors" for unlawfully waging war against Iran without congressional authorization. Massie filed the resolution as "privileged," a procedural move that would normally force the House to act on it within two legislative days. Speaker Mike Johnson's response was to make sure the House was not there to act: he canceled the chamber's last scheduled votes and sent members home a day early for a seven-week pre-midterm recess, taking a final vote Wednesday night on a Russia sanctions bill and then adjourning. The effect is that the Hegseth impeachment vote will not happen until at least November — after the election. Republican leaders insisted the timing had nothing to do with Hegseth, and Johnson called Massie's effort "ridiculous" while defending the secretary. But the reason was reported plainly: leaders wanted to protect vulnerable Republicans — many uneasy with Hegseth's leadership during the unpopular six-month Iran war — from a politically difficult vote. The tell is that impeachment was never likely to pass a Republican House; what leadership could not stomach was making its own members go on the record about Hegseth at all. So rather than hold the vote and defeat it, they canceled Congress and fled town.
After a Yearlong Campaign to Restrict Mail Voting and Repeated Emergency Trips to a Friendly Supreme Court, Trump Was Finally Told No: the Court Left Judge Talwani's Block in Place, Refusing to Let His USPS Mail-Ballot Rule Take Effect for the 2026 Midterms — Finding the Administration Unlikely to Win and, Per Kavanaugh, That Imposing the Rushed Rule Now Would Be "Arbitrary and Capricious"; Only Thomas and Alito Publicly Dissented
On September 14, 2026, the Supreme Court refused to let Trump's mail-voting restrictions take effect for the 2026 midterm elections — leaving in place the preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani and denying the administration's emergency bid to lift it. The practical result: voters will not face the new hurdles this fall. The Court's majority said the administration was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, allowed that there is "at least a fair prospect" the USPS rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority, but concluded that applying it in the 2026 elections "would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections" — precisely the rushed, unworkable timeline that a whistleblower, the states, and Judge Talwani had all warned about. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented; no other justice disclosed a vote to let the rule proceed. This is a defeat for Trump, and a notable one: the same Court that in August lifted an earlier injunction in his favor declined, weeks later, to clear his signature voter-suppression scheme in time for the election it was built for. The rule would have required states to upload voter lists to USPS and meet new ballot-envelope and barcode requirements, letting the Postal Service withhold ballots from voters not on a federal database. For this election, it is dead.
Trump Blamed "Vandals" for the Peeling, Botched $14.7 Million Renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and Had His D.C. Prosecutor Charge Real People Over It — Including a Former Olympian — Before Every Charge Was Dropped; Now, Per the New York Times, the Contractor's Own Reports Admit the Truth: Its Faulty Work, Not Sabotage, Caused the Damage
The Trump administration fast-tracked a roughly $14.7 million renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool ahead of the Fourth of July. The new blue liner promptly peeled, bubbled, and broke loose. Trump's explanation was not that the rushed job had failed — it was that "vandals" had sabotaged the pool. He pushed to prosecute them, and his U.S. Attorney in Washington, Jeanine Pirro, actually charged several people, including former Olympian David Hearn. Every one of those charges was eventually dropped. Now, according to government documents reviewed by The New York Times, the contractor itself — Atlantic Industrial Coatings — has admitted in its own reports (dated August 14 and September 2) that the damage was caused by its work, not by any vandal: "human oversight" meant workers failed to spray enough primer for the liner's layers to bond, the two chemicals mixed for the liner were incompatible, and heat then loosened the bottom layer. In other words, the crime Trump blamed for his project's failure never happened, and he knew enough to concede "some contractor error" back in August even as the prosecutions proceeded. This is the full sequence of the abuse in one small monument: a botched job, a fabricated culprit, and innocent people — one of them an Olympian — charged with a federal crime to protect the president from the embarrassment of his own contractor's mistakes.
The 81-Year-Old Trump-Loyalist Prosecutor Handpicked to Run a "Grand Conspiracy" Investigation of the President's Enemies — the Officials Who Once Investigated Him — Resigned Without Charging a Single Person, Five Months After Vowing He Could Bring Charges in 30 Days, After a Career Prosecutor Was Pushed Out for Refusing to Move Faster and the Justice Department Lost Confidence in Him
Joe diGenova, the 81-year-old longtime Trump loyalist installed in April 2026 to lead a sprawling "grand conspiracy" investigation in the Southern District of Florida targeting Trump's perceived political enemies, told the Associated Press on September 10 that he has resigned from the Justice Department — without bringing charges against anyone. The probe is a revenge project: it examines what DOJ officials cast as "possible crimes" embedded in the very investigations of Trump, stretching from the 2016 Russia inquiry through the January 6 prosecution and the Mar-a-Lago classified-documents case. In other words, it seeks to criminalize the people who investigated Trump. diGenova got the job after a seasoned career prosecutor, Maria Medetis Long, was ousted for balking at bringing charges quickly; he took over vowing he could indict within 30 days. Five months later he has produced no prosecutions, a lead prosecutor on the John Brennan piece had already been replaced for questioning the strength of the case, DOJ officials had reportedly lost confidence in diGenova's leadership, and now he is gone — declining to say why, while calling it "an honor and a privilege to serve the president and the department." The pattern is the story: career prosecutors keep concluding these cases are too weak to charge, so they are replaced by loyalists willing to promise otherwise — and even the loyalist, given the machinery of a federal investigation and a mandate to deliver, could not manufacture a case that was not there.
To Close His Dallas Convention, Trump Led the Crowd in a Loyalty Oath to Himself — Calling Himself "the Greatest President in the History of the United States" and Telling Anyone Who Doesn't Vote They'll "Go to Hell" — and, in the Same Breath as His Yearlong Crusade Against Imaginary Democratic "Fraud," Urged His Own Supporters to "Cheat Like Hell": "I Don't Care If I'm Registered or Not"
On September 10, 2026, closing the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, Trump led the crowd in an extended "pledge" to vote — and told them to cheat. In the oath he directed the room to repeat, he said: "I don't care if I'm registered or not. I'm going to try and cheat like hell like they do. There's never been bigger cheaters." He told those who fail to vote that they would "go to hell," and described himself, mid-oath, as "the greatest president in the history of the United States." The moment is remarkable on two fronts. First, it is a sitting president openly urging his supporters to cheat in an election — even framed as bravado, an extraordinary thing for the head of state to say — and it detonates his own justification for a yearlong assault on voting access. Across this archive, Trump has restricted mail ballots, pushed a national voter database, and built a "citizenship verification" apparatus, all in the name of stopping Democratic "fraud" he has never substantiated. Here he tells his own crowd to "cheat like hell," which exposes the fraud rhetoric as projection and pretext: the cheating he warns about is the cheating he is now endorsing, for his side. Second, the "pledge" was to him personally — a loyalty oath to a man who called himself the greatest president in history and consigned non-voters to hell. A get-out-the-vote drive turned into a cult liturgy with a confession of intent to cheat built in.
A Federal Judge Blocked Trump's Mail-Ballot Scheme Outright — Ruling the Postal Service Rule Likely Unconstitutional Because Only States and Congress Can Set Election Rules, and Finding That Its Rushed Timeline Would Make Voter Disenfranchisement "Practically Inevitable" Before the Midterms — a Real Defeat, Even as His Administration Had Already Raced to the Supreme Court the Day Before to Override Her
On September 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Postal Service from implementing the mail-ballot rule at the heart of Trump's executive order to restrict voting by mail — a durable block that replaces the temporary one she had issued on August 27. Her findings were sharp: the rule is likely unlawful and unconstitutional because it usurps the states' authority to run their own elections (a power the Constitution gives to states and Congress, not the president), and its rushed timeline would make voter disenfranchisement "practically inevitable" before the November midterms, leaving states an "impossible" schedule to comply. The rule she blocked would have forced state and local election officials to submit their ballot envelopes for USPS "design review," add unique tracking barcodes, and upload voters' names, addresses, and barcode data to a new federal portal — and barred the Postal Service from sending ballots to eligible voters until it approved all of that, regardless of looming deadlines. This is a genuine defeat for Trump, and a detailed judicial repudiation of the scheme. But it may be fragile: the administration had already gone to the Supreme Court the day before asking the justices to override her, and it is expected to appeal. The ruling is documented here because of what it establishes on the record — that a court, examining the actual mechanics, found Trump's mail-voting plan both likely illegal and a near-certain engine of disenfranchisement.
Two Days After a Whistleblower Warned That the Postal Service's Rushed Ballot System Could Reject Votes in Bulk — and After Already Winning One Round at the Supreme Court in August — Trump's Administration Raced Back to the Same Court a Second Time, Asking the Justices to Lift a Fresh Federal Order Blocking the USPS Rule So It Can Switch the System On Before the November Midterms
On September 3, 2026, the Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court for the second time in its fight to restrict mail-in voting before the midterms — asking the justices, on an emergency basis, to pause an order by a federal judge in Boston that blocks the U.S. Postal Service from implementing parts of its new mail-ballot rule. The sequence is relentless. Trump's March executive order directs the Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on federally compiled citizenship lists; two courts blocked it as unconstitutional; in August the Supreme Court, 6-3, lifted one of those injunctions; USPS then issued a final rule on August 26; and on August 27 a federal court temporarily blocked the agency from implementing parts of it, with that restraining order set to expire September 10 and a ruling on a longer-term injunction expected within days. Rather than wait for that ruling, the administration went straight back to the Supreme Court to try to clear the block now. The timing is the tell: just two days earlier, a federal whistleblower warned Congress that this very USPS system was rushed, untested, and designed with a "zero-percent failure policy" that could reject entire batches of ballots. The administration is, in effect, asking the Supreme Court to let it switch on a machine it was just warned could disenfranchise millions — racing the calendar toward November, and using the emergency docket to keep the fight on procedure so the courts never have to answer the actual question: whether a president has any authority to run elections at all. He does not.
Trump's Multi-Front Assault on How Americans Vote — a Mail-Ballot Executive Order, a Bid for a National Voter Database, Citizenship-Document Demands, and a Rushed USPS System That Could Reject Ballots in Bulk — Has Run Into a Wall of Public Rejection: Mail Voting Is Popular Across Both Parties, Voters Tell Pollsters His Fraud Claims Are "BS," and His Broader Power Grab Drew One of the Largest Protest Days in American History
Trump has spent 2026 waging a coordinated campaign against how Americans vote — an executive order directing the Postal Service to restrict mail ballots, an effort to compile a national database of voters' private data, demands that registrants produce documents like birth certificates and passports, and, as a whistleblower recently revealed, a rushed USPS system that could reject entire batches of ballots. The stated rationale is "election integrity" and the specter of noncitizen voting. The problem for Trump is that Americans are not buying it, and the backlash has been broad and measurable. Mail and early voting are popular across party lines — Pew found 60% of Americans, including 37% of Republicans, believe people should be able to vote early or absentee without an excuse. CNN's chief data analyst, Harry Enten, summarized the polling bluntly: voters feel Trump is "full of it. Full of BS" on mail voting, the attacks "aren't sticking," and he'd be better off moving on. The rejection extends beyond surveys: the "No Kings" mobilization against Trump's imperial turn filled all 50 states with more than 3,300 events, among the largest single-day protests in U.S. history, and roughly 43% of registered voters say they support it, while a Navigator poll found 52% of Americans describe the federal government as "authoritarian." The through-line is that Trump is attacking a voting method his own voters like, on a fraud premise the evidence does not support, and the public — in polls and in the streets — is pushing back.
A Federal Whistleblower Warned Congress That the Postal Service Is Secretly Rushing an Untested System to Enforce Trump's Mail-Ballot Order — Built in Under Three Months for a Job That Normally Takes a Year, and Designed With a "Zero-Percent Failure Policy" That Would Reject an Entire Batch of Ballots if Even One Is Flagged — Which Could Disenfranchise Millions of Voters Before the Midterms, in Apparent Defiance of the Courts
On September 1, 2026, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a whistleblower report from a federal official warning that the U.S. Postal Service is secretly building a rushed, untested system to implement Trump's mail-in-ballot executive order — and that it could keep millions of voters from getting their ballots this November. The system, a "Federal Ballot Mail Portal" to verify that states' mail ballots comply with the new rule, was reportedly not started "in earnest" until June 2026, giving USPS under three months to build something that would normally take nine to twelve. Most alarming is its design: the whistleblower describes a "zero-percent failure policy" under which an entire batch of ballots could be rejected if even a single ballot in it is deemed invalid — meaning, as one account put it, tossing out 9,999 valid ballots to stop one questionable one. The whistleblower says USPS leadership "discarded all best practices" to hit a September 1 deadline, "raising questions about whether catastrophic failure would be a feature rather than a bug," and alleges that development continued despite court injunctions and a Supreme Court ruling that had blocked the order. These are allegations from an insider, released by a Democratic senator, and USPS is pressing ahead while the DOJ appeals. But if accurate, they describe a plan to disenfranchise voters at scale, in secret, by machine — the operational engine behind a mail-voting order this archive has tracked from executive decree to courtroom.
The Full Supreme Court, 5-4, Let Trump Keep Building His White House Ballroom Indefinitely — but Ducked the Actual Question of Whether He Can Demolish the People's House Without Congress, Ruling Only That the Preservation Group Suing Him Probably Lacks Standing; in a Striking Split, Chief Justice Roberts Joined the Three Liberals in Dissent, Writing That the Construction Is "Likely Unlawful"
On August 31, 2026, the full Supreme Court — going beyond Chief Justice Roberts's individual interim stay ten days earlier — ruled 5-4 that Trump may continue building his White House ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing, indefinitely, while litigation continues. But the Court did not decide the question the case actually raises: whether a president can tear down and rebuild part of the White House without congressional approval. Instead, the unsigned majority ducked the merits on a technicality, holding that the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacks legal standing to sue at all. The lineup was unusual and revealing. The five justices in the majority were all conservatives, including Trump's three appointees. Chief Justice John Roberts — who had granted the temporary stay on August 21 — crossed over to join the Court's three liberals in dissent, writing that construction has now "proceeded for the better part of a year" and is "likely unlawful." That is the Chief Justice of the United States saying, on the record, that the president is probably breaking the law, and that five of his colleagues just cleared the way for him to finish doing it. The ballroom will be built. Whether he had the power to build it is a question the Court arranged never to have to answer.
Rebuffed by the Supreme Court in June, Trump Revived His Unprecedented Campaign to Fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook — Reusing the Same Cherry-Picked Mortgage-Paperwork Allegations to Try to Remove, "For Cause," the First Governor Any President Has Ever Sought to Purge in the Fed's 111-Year History, in a Naked Bid to Bend Interest Rates to His Will; Cook Called the Charges Baseless and Turned Them Back on Trump's Own Cabinet
For the first time in the Federal Reserve's 111-year history, a president is trying to fire a sitting governor — and having failed once, Trump is trying again. In 2025 he purported to remove Governor Lisa Cook "for cause," citing a criminal referral from his own housing-finance director, Bill Pulte, that accused her of listing two homes — one in Michigan, one in Georgia — as her primary residence on mortgage paperwork. Cook sued; lower courts blocked the removal; and in late June 2026 the Supreme Court let her keep her seat while the case proceeds (even as it expanded Trump's removal power over other independent agencies). In August 2026, Trump revived the effort with the same allegations. Cook's lawyers answered in a five-page letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and the White House calling the charges "unfounded and untrue," arguing that "an inadvertent error is not fraud," accusing Pulte of "cherry-picking" mortgage documents to manufacture a referral, and pointedly turning the same kind of paperwork scrutiny back on Trump and members of his own Cabinet. Strip away the mortgage pretext and the real target is the Fed's independence: Trump wants lower interest rates, a governor who will vote for them, and the power to remove any governor who won't. Firing Cook would hand the president direct leverage over the central bank that sets the price of money for the entire economy — the precise outcome a century of law was built to prevent.
The Supreme Court Cleared One of the Two Legal Roadblocks to Trump's Mail-Ballot Executive Order — a Decree That Would Let the Postal Service Refuse to Deliver Mail Ballots From States That Don't Hand Over Their Voter Rolls, Months Before the Midterms — Over a Dissent Warning It "Needlessly Injects Chaos" Into the Election; Justice Jackson Called It a "Kafkaesque Nightmare"
On August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court lifted one of two injunctions that had frozen Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting — an order that, among other things, would have the U.S. Postal Service decline to deliver mail ballots from any state that refuses to hand the federal government a list of every voter receiving one, impose new federal design and tracking standards on mail ballots, and put the Department of Homeland Security in the business of screening state voter rolls. The unsigned order fell along ideological lines. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning the ruling "needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections" and calling the situation a "Kafkaesque nightmare"; Justices Sotomayor and Kagan also dissented. Crucially, the order is not yet in effect: a second nationwide injunction — won by the League of Women Voters and other groups on August 11 — still stands, and legal experts expect the trial court to quickly block the Postal Service's newly finalized rule too. But the direction is unmistakable. The Constitution's Elections Clause gives states, not the president, the power to run federal elections, and two federal courts found Trump's order unconstitutional on exactly that ground. The Court didn't bless the order — it explicitly said implementing measures could still be unlawful — but it pulled away one of the barriers holding back a presidential attempt to dictate how Americans vote, mere months before they do.
A Week After Two Courts Ruled He Was Demolishing the People's House Without the Authority to Do It, Trump Got What He Wanted From the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Roberts Issued a Stay Letting Construction of His $400 Million East Wing Ballroom Keep Going — Overriding, For Now, the Judges Who Said a President Cannot Tear Down and Rebuild the White House Without Congress
On August 21, 2026, Chief Justice John Roberts granted a temporary stay allowing Trump to continue building his 90,000-square-foot, $400-million-plus ballroom on the site of the demolished White House East Wing — putting on hold, for now, the lower-court rulings that had ordered the aboveground work stopped. The legal challenge, brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, argues that the president had no authority to unilaterally demolish part of the White House and erect a massive new structure without congressional approval. A federal district court agreed, finding Trump exceeded his authority, and a divided appeals court affirmed it earlier in August. Rather than go to Congress — the branch the Constitution actually charges with funding and authorizing such things — the administration ran to the Supreme Court's shadow docket, and Roberts, handling the emergency application, blocked the lower courts' order while the justices decide what to do next. The stay is provisional and procedural, not a ruling that the demolition was lawful. But its practical effect is immediate and hard to reverse: the bulldozers and cranes keep working while the courts deliberate, and every day of construction makes the finding that he never had the authority harder to give any teeth. This is the next beat in a saga the archive has tracked from the first judge's order ("the President is not the owner") through the DOJ's shadow-docket gambit — a president reshaping the nation's most symbolic public building on his own say-so, and the courts, so far, letting him.
ABC and Disney Went on the Offensive Against Trump's FCC — Suing in Federal Court and Alleging the Agency Waged a "Retaliatory Campaign" Against the Network, Ordering an Early Review of All Eight of Its Station Licenses Years Ahead of Schedule, to Punish It for Jimmy Kimmel's Jokes, "The View," and Its News Coverage
On August 18, 2026, the Walt Disney Company and ABC — along with the eight ABC-owned stations whose licenses are at stake — sued the Federal Communications Commission in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleging a First Amendment violation. Their claim is blunt: the FCC "has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts." The trigger was the FCC, under Trump ally and chairman Brendan Carr, ordering in April an "early" review of all eight ABC-owned station licenses — years before they are set to expire — nominally citing the company's diversity practices, but (per the suit) actually to punish ABC for its news coverage, the talk show "The View," and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, who relentlessly mocks Trump. The lawsuit cites Trump's own social-media posts attacking all three, and his repeated public demands that ABC be stripped of its licenses. Two clarifications matter: this is a suit against Trump's FCC, not against Trump personally, and no court has ruled yet — the "win" that preceded it was Kimmel's reinstatement after he was pushed off the air under FCC pressure. What ABC has done now is take the government's retaliation for constitutionally protected speech and force it into open court, where using broadcast-license power to punish a network for its content is exactly what the First Amendment forbids.
Asked on Live Television Whether He Would Pledge That the Justice Department Would Be Independent of the White House, the Newly Confirmed Attorney General — Trump's Former Personal Lawyer — Said "No, I'm Not Going to Pledge That," Confirming Out Loud, Days After His 50-49 Confirmation, Exactly What His Critics Warned
Just over a week after the Senate confirmed him 50-49, Attorney General Todd Blanche — Trump's former personal criminal-defense lawyer — went on NBC's "Meet the Press" and was asked the simplest question about his new job: would he pledge that the Justice Department would be independent of the White House? His answer: "No, I'm not going to pledge that." He said he would take President Trump's views into account in directing federal law enforcement, while insisting he would act with integrity and "prosecute without fear or any sort of favor," and that Trump would never cross a "legal line." He also publicly backed U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro after Trump criticized her for dropping a prosecution, and defended the DOJ opinion extending executive privilege to Trump's private advisers. The post-Watergate norm — that the Justice Department does not take direction from the president on who to investigate and charge — is the single most important guardrail against a law-enforcement apparatus turned into a political weapon. Two Republican senators, Collins and Murkowski, voted against Blanche precisely because they feared he would erase it. Days later, on national television, he confirmed they were right: he would not even pledge the independence the office is supposed to embody. He is not hiding the answer. He is stating it.
A Federal Appeals Court Ordered Trump to Stop Building His Ballroom Until Congress Approves It — So Instead of Asking Congress, His DOJ Ran to the Supreme Court's Shadow Docket to Override the Order, Arguing the Demolition and Construction Can't Wait Because of a "Recent Missile Threat on Air Force One"
On August 7, 2026, a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered construction of Trump's roughly $900 million White House ballroom halted unless the administration obtains congressional approval — reaffirming the principle a district judge had already stated in voiding the project earlier: "The President Is Not the Owner." The White House does not belong to the president; he cannot unilaterally demolish and rebuild it, or spend the public's money on it, without Congress. Rather than go to Congress, the administration went to the Supreme Court. On the shadow docket, the Justice Department asked the justices to stay the injunction and let construction continue — and the justification it offered was a "recent missile threat on Air Force One," arguing that the ballroom's hardened, bomb- and missile-resistant construction is too urgent to pause. Chief Justice John Roberts set a deadline for the challengers to respond. The move is the now-familiar pattern: told by a court to stop, the administration neither complies nor persuades Congress but sprints to the Supreme Court to have the check overridden — dressing a vanity building project, whose cost quadrupled to nearly $900 million and whose funds were partly diverted without Congress, in the language of an emergency national-security threat.
Trump's Own Justice Department Issued a Memo Declaring He Can Hide His Conversations With Private, Outside Advisers — Billionaires, Fixers, Private Lawyers, Even State Officials — Under "Executive Privilege," Stretching a Doctrine the Supreme Court Already Ruled Isn't Absolute, to Wall Off His Shadow Advisers From Congress Right Before the Midterms
On August 11, 2026, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel published a 21-page opinion, signed by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, declaring that executive privilege can shield the president's communications with "private advisers" — a category the memo defines to include essentially anyone Trump consults outside the executive branch, "whether they be members of the public, state officials, or employees of other branches of the federal government." It is the first time the Justice Department has explicitly extended executive privilege beyond the president and his immediate White House staff to private citizens. Historically the privilege reached only official advisers, and the Supreme Court held in United States v. Nixon (1974) that it is not absolute and yields in criminal cases. The immediate beneficiary is Boris Epshteyn — the outside Trump adviser and "fixer" whom the American Bar Association subpoenaed, and who coordinated the campaign of pressure that produced nearly $1 billion in pledged free legal work from law firms, and who helped steer the lawyers in Trump's sham IRS-immunity litigation. The memo would let all of that stay hidden. OLC opinions are not binding on courts, but they govern how the executive branch behaves, and this one is transparently timed: issued months before the midterms, it is pre-emptive armor to defeat the wave of congressional investigations the White House expects if Democrats retake the House. It converts a narrow, court-limited doctrine into a blanket secrecy cloak for government-by-crony — a way to keep the public from ever learning which unelected billionaires and operatives are shaping official decisions, and what they said.
The Check Broke: Todd Blanche — Trump's Personal Criminal-Defense Lawyer, Referred for Bar Discipline Over a Sham IRS Deal, Who Defied a Court Order to Bury the Epstein Files and Says Trump Has a "Right" to Order Prosecutions of His Enemies — Was Confirmed as Attorney General 50-49, With Bill Cassidy Casting the Decisive Vote
In the early hours of Saturday, August 8, 2026, the Senate confirmed Todd Blanche as attorney general of the United States by a vote of 50-49 — the narrowest possible margin. Blanche is Trump's former personal criminal-defense lawyer. He was referred by a federal judge for bar discipline over the collusive IRS "settlement" that laundered Trump tax immunity and tried to create a $1.8 billion fund for the January 6 rioters. His Justice Department defied a court order and the transparency law Trump signed to keep the Epstein files sealed. And in his first press conference as acting AG he asserted that the president has a "right" and "duty" to order the department to investigate his enemies — a doctrine the DOJ is now executing against Comey, Letitia James, and others. Two Republicans, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, voted no, joining every Democrat; Murkowski said the country needs an attorney general "who will check the worst impulses of this administration." It was not enough. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana — who voted to convict Trump in the 2021 impeachment and had been the last uncertain Republican — announced Friday he would back Blanche, becoming the decisive vote. With Sen. Mitch McConnell absent (recovering after a June fall), Cassidy's support made it 50-49, sparing even a Vance tiebreak. The nomination was in genuine peril for weeks; in the end it held by one vote. The man most of the corruption catalogued in this archive runs through is now, with the full permanent authority of the office and no "acting" qualifier, the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States.
Todd Blanche Killed His $1.8 Billion Rioter Fund to Buy Off Two Republican Holdouts and Squeaked Out of Committee 12-10 — Then a Second Republican, Lisa Murkowski, Came Out Against Him Anyway, Saying "The Country Needs an Attorney General Who Will Check the Worst Impulses of This Administration," Leaving Trump's Personal Lawyer's Path to Run the DOJ Hanging by a Single Vote
On August 7, 2026, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced she will vote against Todd Blanche — Trump's former personal criminal-defense lawyer and acting attorney general — for the permanent job. She becomes the second Republican "no," joining Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and her reasons cut to the heart of it: "The country needs an Attorney General who will check the worst impulses of this administration." Murkowski cited the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, the sweeping tax-audit immunity deal engineered for Trump, and the proposed $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization" fund to compensate the president's allies. What makes the defection sting is that Blanche had already paid the ransom to survive: to win over earlier holdouts John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, he formally rescinded the $1.8 billion fund and clarified the scope of Trump's IRS immunity deal, then scraped out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line 12-10 vote. Killing the fund got him out of committee; it did not make him confirmable. With Republicans holding a 53-47 majority and Mitch McConnell absent for medical reasons, Blanche can afford to lose only two GOP votes — and Collins and Murkowski are those two. His confirmation now rests entirely on Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), an outgoing senator who has bucked Trump before. Trump's hand-picked loyalist to run the Justice Department is one Republican vote from failing.
Trump Campaigned on Ending the "Weaponization" of the Justice Department — Then Turned It Into an Instrument for Prosecuting His Enemies: His Acting AG Says Trump Has a "Right" and "Duty" to Order Investigations, a Trump-Loyalist "Grand Conspiracy" Grand Jury in Florida Is Hunting His Foes, and 100+ Career Prosecutors Have Quit
A Democratic member of Congress, appearing on NBC's "Hallie Jackson NOW" on July 31, 2026, said Trump is "hellbent" on controlling the Justice Department and is "personally directing" the cases the department is bringing against his political opponents. The charge is not speculation; it is the documented operating principle of the DOJ under acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. In his first press conference as acting AG, Blanche said Trump has both a "right" and a "duty" to order the department to investigate his enemies — and when asked how he would square that with Trump's own executive order claiming to end the "weaponization" of government, he said he would not. Under Blanche, the DOJ has: re-indicted former FBI Director James Comey (after Trump publicly forced out the prosecutor who found insufficient evidence, installed his own former personal lawyer, and got an indictment within days — later dismissed, then refiled over a social-media post of seashells spelling "86 47"); pursued New York Attorney General Letitia James, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, former CIA Director John Brennan, members of Congress, and a probe into California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wife; and stood up a "grand conspiracy" grand jury in the Trump-friendly Southern District of Florida — led by 2020-election-denier Joe diGenova — to hunt Obama- and Biden-era officials as an anti-Trump cabal. More than 100 career prosecutors have resigned, many citing political interference. A Marquette poll found 55% of Americans believe the DOJ has filed unjustified cases against Trump's opponents. The thing Trump said he would stop, he built.
After 23 States and Two Federal Courts Blocked It as Unconstitutional, Trump Asked the Supreme Court to Let His Mail-Voting Order Take Effect Before the Midterms — an Order That Would Bar the Postal Service From Mailing Ballots to Anyone Not on State-Submitted Lists, Put DHS in Charge of Screening Voter Rolls, and Prioritize Prosecuting Election Officials
On July 27, 2026, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court — via an emergency "shadow docket" application filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer — to lift lower-court blocks and let a sweeping executive order restricting mail voting take effect in time for the November midterms. The March executive order would: require states to submit lists of eligible mail voters to the U.S. Postal Service, which would be barred from sending a ballot to anyone not on those lists; give the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security new roles screening state voter rolls for supposed noncitizens; mandate individualized barcodes on ballot envelopes; and "prioritize" federal prosecution of state election officials who send ballots to ineligible voters. Twenty-three Democratic-led states sued, noting the Constitution leaves the running of elections to the states, not the White House. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked it as a separation-of-powers violation, and the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that block over the weekend, finding the order would "sow confusion" and "threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters." Sauer argued the injunction was "extraordinary" and that the order "merely sets forth general policy guidance." Voting-rights groups called it "plainly unconstitutional... yet another attempt by the president to unlawfully take control of elections from the states, deter eligible voters from casting ballots, and sow chaos as the November midterms approach." It is the same campaign documented here through the FEMA counterterrorism-funding blackmail, the purge of the Election Assistance Commission, and the primetime "China stole 220 million voter files" speech — now escalated to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to green-light federal control over an election the president has spent months insisting will be stolen.
For the Second Time, the House Formally Voted to Order Trump to End His War in Iran — 214-208, With Four Republicans Crossing the Aisle — Because Congress Never Authorized the War, Troops Are Dying in It, and He Ignored the Last Resolution Telling Him to Stop
On July 23, 2026, the House of Representatives passed a war powers resolution, 214-208, directing President Trump to "remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran." It was sponsored by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), and four Republicans — Thomas Massie (KY), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Warren Davidson (OH), and Tom Barrett (MI) — crossed the aisle to support it. It was the House's fifth vote on a measure to rein in Trump's Iran military actions, and only the second time it has successfully adopted one. The vote came days after four U.S. service members were killed in the Middle East and weeks after the ceasefire and memorandum of understanding Trump paraded as a triumph collapsed — he declared the MOU "over" and, on July 10, formally notified Congress that fighting had resumed. Congress never authorized this war; there is no AUMF for Iran, and under the Constitution the power to take the country to war belongs to the legislature. Jayapal called it "a big victory for the vast majority of the American people who want President Trump to end this illegal war," saying the House was "reasserting our authority over war." The Senate was set to vote the same day on a companion resolution from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). But the resolution is a concurrent measure that does not go to the president for signature and cannot, by itself, force him to withdraw — the same kind Congress passed in June, which Trump simply ignored as he restarted the war. The vote is a genuine bipartisan rebuke and a real constitutional assertion. It is also a portrait of a broken check: the branch the Constitution entrusts with the power of war telling the president to stop, twice, while he wages on.
Trump Fired Every Remaining Member of the Bipartisan Election Assistance Commission — Gutting the Agency That Certifies Voting Machines Four Months Before the Midterms — Then Gave a Primetime Address Claiming China Stole "220 Million Voter Files," a Claim His Own Government's Intelligence Flatly Contradicts
On July 16, 2026, Trump delivered a 25-minute primetime address from the White House East Room claiming he was "declassifying intelligence" that revealed "shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure" — including the assertion that "The People's Republic of China carried out what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China's illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files." His own government's intelligence contradicts him: a federal report from March 2021 concluded "We have no indications that any foreign actor attempted to alter any technical aspect of the voting process in the 2020 US elections." FactCheck.org and others found the documents the White House posted did not support the sweeping claims. The speech came exactly one week after Trump fired the three remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission — Democrats Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland (dismissed by email) and Republican Christy McCormick (asked to resign by phone) — leaving the bipartisan federal agency that certifies voting-machine standards and helps states run elections without a quorum, unable to act, and unlikely to regain one before the November midterms. The White House cited a recent 6-3 Supreme Court decision on the president's power to fire independent-agency members as its justification. Trump also repeated debunked 2020 conspiracy theories and baselessly claimed fraud cost a Republican the Los Angeles mayoral primary. A Reuters analysis found his noncitizen-voting claims unsupported — just 129 prosecutions under the relevant law since 1996, most involving confusion or paperwork errors, not organized fraud. It all lands atop the administration's broader campaign to seize control of election administration: the FEMA counterterrorism-funding blackmail, the SAVE voter-roll purges, and DOJ criminal threats to state officials.
The DOJ Sent Federal Agents to the Homes of Four New York Times Reporters With Grand-Jury Subpoenas — for Reporting That Trump's Qatari Air Force One Lacks Missile Defenses and That the Secret Service Told Him Not to Fly It — and the Prosecutor Who Issued Them Is Trump's Nominee to Run National Intelligence
The Justice Department subpoenaed four New York Times journalists — Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager, and Eric Schmitt — ordering them before a Manhattan federal grand jury "in regard to an alleged violation of criminal law." Federal agents delivered some of the subpoenas to the reporters' homes. Their offense: reporting that the Secret Service urged Trump to leave the NATO summit in Turkey aboard the old Air Force One rather than the Qatari-gifted Boeing 747, and that the gifted jet lacks "defensive countermeasures that were security features of the old model, including its advanced antimissile capabilities." The subpoenas were issued by Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan — who is himself Trump's nominee to become Director of National Intelligence, with a confirmation hearing days away — and followed a White House meeting involving FBI Director Kash Patel. The Times said it will fight the order. Its newsroom lawyer David McCraw said federal agents on reporters' doorsteps "should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects." The National Press Club called it "an extraordinary assault on the freedom of the press that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment." The DOJ claimed "reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are." The move fits a pattern: the department earlier issued then withdrew similar subpoenas against Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporters, the FBI searched a Post reporter's home in January, and in April 2025 AG Pam Bondi rescinded the Biden-era policy that shielded journalists' records in leak investigations. The reporting being criminalized is the same reporting documented here days ago — that the $400M+ rushed retrofit produced a plane one analyst said was suited to "domestic hops rather than hostile skies."
FEMA Will Withhold 20% of a $1 Billion Anti-Terrorism Grant Program — Money for Cybersecurity and Protecting Crowded Public Spaces — Unless States Rewrite Their Elections to Trump's Demands Before the Midterms, a Power the Constitution Gives Him Zero Authority Over
The Trump administration is holding counterterrorism money hostage to force states to change how they run elections before the November 2026 midterms. FEMA's fiscal-year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program notice says the agency will withhold 20% of each state's total award — from a $1.064 billion program that funds cybersecurity, emergency planning, training, equipment, and protection of crowded public spaces — until the state proves it has complied with new "Election Security" requirements. Those requirements: submit a plan to abandon electronic voting systems that use bar codes/QR codes and move to hand-marked paper ballots (eliminating ballot-marking devices); conduct 5% manual post-election audits; reconcile voters against ballots cast; run the entire voter roll through the DHS "SAVE" citizenship database within 120 days; and verify the citizenship of every poll worker and vendor. In FY2025 the election-related hold was just 3% for three modest actions; FY2026 escalates it to 20% and a far larger list. The 3% election-security set-aside and the 20% holdback are explicitly separate — meeting one does not release the other. The grants flow largely to populous urban states: New York alone expects about $204 million in FY2026. Switching to hand-marked paper ballots would cost states hundreds of millions — Georgia's Republican secretary of state estimated $66 million for his state alone. The Constitution gives the president no authority over election administration; a federal judge recently wrote exactly that while blocking parts of Trump's anti-voting executive order, and another judge blocked DHS from using SAVE to purge voters, finding the administration "knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens." The DOJ has separately sued 30 states for refusing to hand over voter lists and warned election officials in all 50 states they could face criminal charges. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul: the administration is "once again putting New Yorkers' lives at risk to forward their political agenda." Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows: "Trump is trying to meddle in how states run American elections because he's terrified of losing power after the 2026 midterms."
On the Same Day Trump Held a Housing Bill Hostage for a Voter-ID Law, a Judge Permanently Struck Down His Voter-ID Executive Order — Ruling He Has No Power Over Elections At All
On June 24, 2026 — the same day Trump canceled the signing of a bipartisan housing bill to pressure Congress into passing his SAVE America Act voter-ID law — U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently struck down most of his elections executive order, including its requirement that Americans show documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. In a 59-page ruling converting her year-old preliminary injunction into a permanent one, Casper held that the Constitution "does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," that authority belongs to the states and Congress, and that the order violated separation of powers. She also found the Justice Department "failed to demonstrate the alleged fraud" used to justify the order, and that the policy "would have disenfranchised thousands." The case was brought by 19 states. It is the latest in a string of defeats: three separate federal judges have now blocked the 2025 order. The ruling lays bare the futility loop Trump is in — courts say he can't do it by executive order, so he's trying to do it by legislation (the SAVE Act), which can't get 60 votes in the Senate, which is why he's now holding popular bills hostage to force it through. Noncitizen voting is already a felony and is vanishingly rare; the federal registration form already requires attesting to citizenship under penalty of prison or deportation.
For the First Time in History, Both Chambers of Congress Passed a War Powers Resolution to Stop a President's War — Trump's Own Party Helped Do It
On June 23, 2026, the Senate voted 50-48 to direct President Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran — the first time in the 53-year history of the War Powers Act that a resolution to halt a president's war has passed both chambers of Congress. The House had passed the same concurrent resolution on June 3 by 215-208. Because it is a concurrent resolution, it does not require Trump's signature. Four Republican senators — Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Bill Cassidy, and Rand Paul — broke ranks to join the Democrats; the measure cleared the chamber partly because Mitch McConnell and Dave McCormick, who had blocked earlier attempts, did not vote. It was the tenth time the Senate had tried to stop the war. Sen. Tim Kaine, who led the effort, said: "The most solemn power for Congress is Congress has the power to declare war, not the president." Kaine pressed the vote even with talks underway in Switzerland and pointed to the administration's request for $80 billion in emergency spending to rebuild munitions depleted since the war began on Feb. 28. Trump called the House version "a meaningless vote" and branded the Republicans who crossed him "GRANDSTANDERS." The rebuke is historic precisely because it required Congress to formally tell a president to stop a war that his own intelligence community said was never necessary.
Trump Plots to "Expunge" Both Impeachments from the Record — Constitutional Scholars: "You Cannot Un-Ring a Bell"
The Wall Street Journal reports Trump and allies are pushing a House resolution to expunge both impeachments — for abusing power to pressure Ukraine and for inciting the January 6 insurrection. Trump: "It should be done because I did nothing wrong. It was a rigged deal." Speaker Johnson: "I think it makes a lot of sense." Constitutional scholars say the Constitution contains no mechanism to undo an impeachment. Georgetown's Jonathan Turley: "It is not like a constitutional DUI. Once you are impeached, you are impeached." Hofstra's James Sample: "You cannot un-ring a bell." Rep. Darrell Issa introduced a resolution in April; Rep. Anna Paulina Luna announced another. GOP lawmakers privately say it won't be considered until after the midterms — because rehashing Trump's conduct would hurt them. Schiff: "There is no expunging the stain." Raskin: "There is a very easy way to not get impeached: stop committing impeachable offenses."
House GOP Cancels Iran War Vote Because They Were Going to Lose It — Then Sends Congress Home for Memorial Day
House Republicans pulled the Iran war powers vote after it became clear they didn't have the votes to defeat it — Democrats had unified with enough GOP defectors to pass it. Instead of allowing a vote on a three-month-old undeclared war, Speaker Johnson sent Congress home for Memorial Day. Combat veteran Rep. Pat Ryan erupted on the Capitol steps: "These chicken hawk motherfuckers" won't give "an up or down vote on continuing this war while Americans are paying $5 a gallon."