Money Trails and Backgrounds of 10 Democrat-Appointed Judges Blocking Trump Policies
Federal judges ruling against President Donald Trump’s recent executive actions have been almost entirely appointees of his two Democrat predecessors.
Some were previously activists, others were steeped in Democrat politics, and one is a former clerk for then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor. These judges have issued rulings to block Trump’s policies on immigration, federal spending, the Department of Government Efficiency, and other matters.
Plaintiffs have been “forum shopping” to attain more favorable rulings, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice. Forum shopping means they search for specific parts of the country where judges are more likely to be liberal and sympathetic to their case.
“They are trying to flood the zone and make it hard for the Trump administration to pursue its agenda,” Levey told The Daily Signal. “They are likely to win at the district level. And liberal districts are often in liberal circuits. So, in some cases, they can win at the circuit level and give the appearance that the Trump administration is under siege. Another advantage to flooding the zone is that the Supreme Court is limited. It only hears about 75 cases per year.”
Some of the judges ruling against Trump include:
A one-time major Democrat donor, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island, recently sided with a group of Democrat state attorneys general in a lawsuit to block Trump’s attempted funding freeze for numerous federal grants to nongovernmental organizations.
From 2000 until when President Barack Obama nominated him to the federal bench in 2010, McConnell contributed about $60,000 to Democrat candidates. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed his nomination, noting his long career as a lawyer who sued over lead paint and tobacco, Forbes reported.
Notably, the judge previously rejected a lawsuit to remove candidate Trump from Rhode Island’s 2024 ballot.
In a separate case targeting the order on the funding freeze, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of the District of Columbia, an appointee of President Joe Biden, imposed a restraining order on the freeze. AliKhan was previously on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the D.C. solicitor general.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali of the District of Columbia, a Biden appointee, enforced a restraining order to prevent the spending freeze on foreign aid disbursed by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. In 2020, Ali contributed $1,500 to Biden’s presidential campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org. He also made modest contributions to numerous other Democrat candidates.
Before his nomination, Ali was the executive director of the MacArthur Justice Center, an organization initially founded to oppose the death penalty but that has since expanded to other criminal justice issues.
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang of the District of Maryland, an Obama appointee, blocked the Trump administration from conducting immigration raids and arrests at certain houses of worship.
During much of Obama’s time in office, Chuang was the deputy general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security. Before that, from 2007 to 2009, he was the deputy chief investigative counsel for the Democrat majority on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He was also a past contributor to several Democrat candidates, including giving $750 to Obama’s 2008 campaign and $1,250 to the 2004 presidential bid of Democrat John Kerry.
U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York recently halted DOGE’s access to Department of Treasury records.
Biden nominated Vargas, a former New York federal prosecutor, last year. Vargas contributed $2,000 to Biden’s 2020 campaign, and before that, gave $750 to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Before working in the Justice Department, Vargas clerked for then-U.S. 2nd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor from 2001 to 2002.
U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead of the Western District of Washington state blocked Trump’s executive order suspending refugee admissions. Biden nominated Whitehead in 2023. During the Obama administration, Whitehead was the senior trial attorney at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman of the District of Maryland sided with the American Federation of Teachers, a union, to block DOGE from accessing information from the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Education regarding student loans.
Biden nominated Boardman, a former federal public defender, in 2021. She has been a moderate donor to numerous Democrat campaigns, including giving $500 to Obama’s 2008 campaign and $500 to Clinton in the same campaign cycle.
U.S. District Judge Lauren King of the Western District of Washington, a Biden appointee, temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s restrictions on federal funding for “sex change” treatments for minors.
U.S. District Judge George O’Toole of the District of Massachusetts, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, issued a similar ruling to block the Trump administration’s restriction on sex change funding. He was recommended for the seat by then-Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.
U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson of Maryland, Biden appointee, blocked Trump’s executive order ending federal support of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs, or DEI. A very modest donor to Democrat candidates, he was previously a magistrate judge and in private practice in Maryland.
Some notable exceptions to the Democrat-appointed judges handing Trump court losses: There have been at least four court rulings on Trump’s order scrapping birthright citizenship, with two of those rulings coming from Republican appointees—Judges John Coughenour of Washington state and Joseph Laplante of New Hampshire. They were nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively.
An order signed by President Trump on Tuesday signals a new front in fighting lawfare operatives in the private sector.
As an aide started to explain the latest order about to be signed during a press conference in the White House on Tuesday afternoon, President Trump interrupted his spiel.
“Hold it, this is a good one,” the president, holding up his hand, said to several reporters assembled in the Oval Office. “Is everybody listening? We’re going to call it the ‘Deranged Jack Smith’…bill.”
The order, in the form of a memo to several agency heads, suspended the security clearance of employees at Covington & Burling, a Democratic-connected white-shoe law firm headquartered in Washington. According to a January 27 Wall Street Journalarticle–and followed up by Politico–the firm provided at least $140,000 in pro bono services to disgraced former special counsel Jack Smith.
Although both cases ended after Trump’s election, Smith’s problems were just beginning. Trump had promised on the campaign trail that his administration would investigate evidence of abuse and misconduct by the special counsel and his team. He fulfilled that promise by signing an executive order on January 20 to end the “weaponization” of the federal government, particularly the DOJ and intelligence community: “The prior administration and allies throughout the country engaged in an unprecedented, third-world weaponization of prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process. These actions appear oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.”
In a follow-up move, Attorney General Pam Bondi formed a “Weaponization Working Group” on Feb. 5 and specifically cited Smith, “who spent more than $50 million targeting President Trump.”
Smith officially left the Biden DOJ on January 10 but not before succeeding in releasing one volume of his two-volume report into the investigations of the president. And in the “quit digging a hole” category, Smith recently signed an open letter to current prosecutors expressing “alarm…by recent actions of the Department’s leadership.”
With Free Friends Like This…
Trump, along with his DOJ, likely will have the last laugh. And it’s doubtful Smith’s free lawyers at Covington & Burling, with offices around the world, are amused. While it’s unclear how many security clearances have been suspended, it appears two lawyers—Peter Koski and Clinton pal Lanny Breuer—were directly involved in providing free counsel to Smith. Koski worked at the DOJ’s public integrity unit during the same time Smith headed the unit during the Obama administration. Other notable Democrats at the firm include former Attorney General Eric Holder, Biden’s longtime foreign affairs advisor and Ukraine war architect Victoria Nuland, and Biden’s former White House counsel Dana Remus.
The presidential directive may have an immediate impact on Smith’s ability to build a defense, particularly for Koski. “Revoking [Koski’s] clearance could limit his access to sensitive government records, given that both of Mr. Smith’s criminal investigations against Mr. Trump involved classified documents. Doing so could sharply limit what representation Mr. Koski might be able to offer,” the New York Timesreported on Feb 25.
But Trump’s “Deranged Jack Smith” order goes beyond suspending access to privileged material. The president further ordered federal agencies to look for any government contracts with Covington & Burling. “I also direct the Attorney General and heads of agencies to take such actions as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law,” the president wrote.
It’s unknown how many, if any, government contracts exist with the firm. Possibly none. But the missive is yet another welcome sign of the so-called “Trump 2.0” administration, where heads will roll inside and outside government not just for viciously targeting the president and his supporters but for misleading the American people and wasting time and money in the process. To wit, the president indicated this is just the start.
After signing the order, the president turned to his aide and asked, “we’ll be doing this for other firms as time goes by?” The aide answered in the affirmative. After adding his signature, Trump threw his Sharpie to someone in the office. “Why don’t you send it to Jack Smith,” he joked.
Prestigious law firms act as both the hidden hammer and revolving door in the lawfare against Republicans. This is playing out in at least a dozen lawsuits filed against the Trump administration over the past 30 days. Until there is pain felt by both public and private lawyers responsible for this unprecedented attack against the will of the people, it will continue.
The NAACP will present its prestigious Chairman’s Award to former Vice President Kamala Harris at the upcoming NAACP Image Awards on February 22. This honor is supposedly reserved for individuals who “excel in public service” and “leverage their platforms to ignite and drive meaningful change.”
Now, let’s be clear—this is hardly surprising. The NAACP has long functioned as an extension of the Democratic Party, handing out accolades to left-wing politicians while ignoring Black Americans who don’t subscribe to their political agenda.
Case in point: this award has gone to Barack Obama, Al Gore, John Lewis, Bennie Thompson, and Maxine Waters, but never to Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell—two of the most accomplished Black Americans in modern history. Apparently, their contributions to public service don’t count because they don’t toe the party line.
The announcement was filled with the usual over-the-top praise. According to NAACP Board Chairman Leon W. Russell, Harris is not just a leader but a “force of change” driven by “an unwavering passion to shape a brighter, more equitable future.”
Meanwhile, NAACP President Derrick Johnson declared that Harris “embodies the power, grace, and unyielding courage that Black women have long brought to the heart of the United States.” And, of course, the president of BET Media Group, Scott Mills, added that her “unwavering commitment to justice, equity, and progress has inspired millions.”
But here’s the real question: what exactly has Kamala Harris done to deserve this award? What policies has she spearheaded that have tangibly improved the lives of Black Americans?
Under the Biden-Harris administration, inflation has hammered working-class families, crime has skyrocketed in major cities, and border security has become an absolute disaster—despite Harris supposedly being the “border czar.” Yet, in the world of the NAACP, simply existing as a Black liberal politician seems to be enough to earn a trophy.
The pattern here is undeniable. If you’re a Black American who aligns with the left, you’re a “beacon of hope.”
If you’re a Black American who dares to think independently—like Clarence Thomas, who sits on the highest court in the land, or Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest economic minds of our time—you’re ignored. The NAACP isn’t about civil rights anymore; it’s about maintaining a political monopoly.
The case of alleged murderer Luigi Mangione has peeled back yet another layer of moral rot infecting certain corners of the modern left. Here we have a privileged 26-year-old from a wealthy Maryland family, a University of Pennsylvania graduate, who—according to police and clear-as-day video evidence—gunned down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in the streets of New York City last December. A father. A husband. A man Mangione had no personal connection to.
And yet, in a disturbing reflection of the times, this brutal act has been met with a grotesque level of sympathy from some, all because the killer supposedly had the “right” motivations. His actions, they argue, were a protest against the healthcare system and the insurance industry—never mind that what he actually did was shoot an unarmed man in the back.
CNN “reporter” KaitlanCollins promoted a fundraiser for Luigi Mangione. She has since deleted the public relations post for Luigi. pic.twitter.com/7ZI72b9Yfk
But that’s not stopping the apologists. And now, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins appears to have waded right into the mess, according to reports. The network’s chief White House correspondent reportedly posted a link to a website launched by Mangione’s defense team—before quietly deleting it after the backlash hit. Why? Because people noticed.
That link, by the way, was for a legal defense fund that has already raked in over $300,000 from Mangione’s supporters. That’s right—an Ivy League-educated killer from a wealthy family, who allegedly committed a public execution in cold blood, has managed to draw in six figures’ worth of donations.
Two things stand out here: First, Collins conveniently left out the fact that Mangione’s defense attorney is another CNN insider. Second, her original post is now mysteriously unavailable, as pointed out by journalist Stephen Miller. That deletion speaks volumes.
It’s worth asking: Was Collins just blindly sharing the link without thinking? Or was this yet another example of the increasingly common habit of framing violent criminals as misunderstood victims—so long as they fit the right ideological mold?
Wow. Usually when someone makes an error and deletes a tweet, they’ll say, “my bad” and explain they’ve removed a post.
Looks like @kaitlancollins thought no one would notice the Luigi Mangione boosting.
Oops.
This isn’t the first time a murderer has been repackaged into a “cause” rather than a criminal. But what’s particularly galling here is the sheer detachment from reality. Brian Thompson doesn’t get to have a defense fund. He doesn’t get to have a website where he can share his feelings. He doesn’t get to post his gratitude to supporters. He was executed.
And yet, Mangione, a man who had every advantage in life, is now being treated like some kind of folk hero by certain circles.
Collins’ actions, whether intentional or just wildly careless, raise real questions. Is this just another example of mainstream media figures being unable to resist the impulse to glorify criminals if they fit a certain narrative? Or was this simply a case of poor judgment and a scramble to backtrack once the backlash hit? Either way, it’s not a good look.
I am expert in influenza, and have consulted with the WHO over the past two decades on the topic of flu vaccines. This is one subject matter I am extremely knowledgeable about. This goes back to my medical school days, when I worked with Robert Lamb, one of the top influenza virus specialists in the world. It extended through much of my career, including my serving as Director of Clinical Influenza Vaccine Research for Solvay Biologicals, in which I oversaw over $200 million in federal (BARDA) alternative (cell-based) influenza vaccine research funding.
What is happening now with “Bird flu” is another psyops campaign being conducted by the administrative/deep state, apparently in partnership with Pharma, against the American people. They know and we know that the “vaccines” being produced will be somewhat ineffective, as all flu “vaccines” are. The government is chasing a rapidly evolving RNA virus with a syringe, just like they did with HIV and Covid-19.
Generally, the currently circulating avian influenza strain in the US does not include any cases of human-to-human transmission. And the current mortality, with over 60 cases identified, is 0%. NOT 50%.
All the while they are getting prepared to roll out masks, lockdowns, quarantines, etc.
All the while getting ready to roll out mRNA vaccines for poultry and livestock, as well as for all of us.
The more they test, the more “Bird flu” (H5N1) they will find. This “pandemic” is nothing more than an artifact of their newly developed protocols to test cattle, poultry, pets, people, and wildlife on a massive scale for avian influenza. In years past, this was not even considered. In the past, the USG did fund a massive testing and surveillance program called “Biowatch.” That program was a colossal failure and a massive waste of money. Billions of dollars.
Of course, these facilities producing the tests have been repurposed from the Covid-19 testing facilities.
Key questions include:
Will we all comply?
Will we be forced to comply?
Will President Trump go along with the PsyWar/psyops campaign again?
We will know soon enough.
As the United States is testing everyone who has even the mildest symptoms for the H5N1 (avian) influenza, guess what – they are finding it! This is what we call in the lab, a “sampling bias.”
Globally, from 1997 until the present, there have been 907 reported cases of H5N1. And in fact, this particular outbreak was not the worst – and it is the only one where a massive testing campaign has occurred. It appears that this is partly due to the new diagnostic capabilities developed and deployed during Covid-19. The more you test, the more you find. But is it clinically significant?
The Case Study of Tetanus: Supply Chain Issues.
The CDC recommends a booster for the tetanus vaccine every 10 years for adults.
However, research published almost a decade ago suggests that the protection from tetanus and diphtheria vaccination lasts at least 30 years after completing the standard childhood vaccination series.
“We have always been told to get a tetanus shot every 10 years, but actually, there is very little data to prove or disprove that timeline. When we looked at the levels of immunity among 546 adults, we realized that antibody titers against tetanus and diphtheria lasted much longer then previously believed.”
-Mark K. Slifka, Ph.D, study author
This research, published in a highly reputable journal, suggests that a revised vaccination schedule with boosters occurring at ages 30 and 60 would be sufficient. As this was published in early 2016, the US government, at the very least, could have commissioned easily designed prospective and retrospective studies to confirm these results. And those results would have been published by now, with the tetanus adult schedule revised to reflect what is now known about the durable immunity of tetanus and diphtheria vaccines. Reducing the boosters to just two shots would save the government vast sums of money.
Not only that, but both the tetanus and diphtheria vaccines carry risks for adults. It is estimated that 50%–85% of patients experience injection site pain or tenderness, 25%–30% experience edema and erythema. Higher preexisting anti-tetanus antibody levels are also associated with a higher reactogenicity rate and greater severity (reference).
Anaphylaxis after tetanus vaccination represents a rare but potentially serious adverse event, with an incidence of 1.6 cases per million doses. That means if 100 million adults receive the booster every ten years, 320 cases of anaphylaxis will be avoided over the 30-year period – from those two boosters being eliminated. Tetanus has always been a “rare” disease, spread through a skin wound contaminated by Clostridium tetani bacteria, commonly found in soil, dust, and manure. Before vaccines were available, there were about 500 cases a year, with most resulting in death. Concerns about vaccine-associated adverse events when immunizations were performed at short intervals led to a revision of the tetanus/diphtheria vaccination schedule in 1966 to once every 10 years for patients >6 years of age.
It has recently come to my attention that the traditional stand-alone tetanus vaccine (TT) that one used to receive as an adult has been discontinued due to WHO recommendations. Their reasoning being:
Use of TTCV combinations with diphtheria toxoid are strongly encouraged and single-antigen vaccines should be discontinued whenever feasible to help maintain both high diphtheria and high tetanus immunity throughout the life course.
The CDC blames the shuttering of the only plant producing TT for the current lack of a stand-alone TT vaccine.
Now, in order to get a booster tetanus shot, an adult must take the following.
Td: Sanofi’s Tenivacprotects against tetanus and diphtheria. Given to people 7 years and older as a booster every 10 years. *A version also includes pertussis (eg DPT), but due to the risk of encephalitis, it is not recommended as a booster.
Why is the DPT combination vaccine discouraged in adults due to encephalitis risk, but is it recommended for children? Another one of those inconvenient issues that plague the CDC-recommended childhood vaccine schedule.
While supplies of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (Tdap) vaccines (Sanofi’s Adacel and GSK’s Boostrix) aren’t limited, they are more expensive, and a very small fraction of patients can develop encephalopathy (brain damage) from the pertussis component.
In the United States, diphtheria is virtually non-existent, with only 14 cases reported between 1996 and 2018. Of those cases reported, most were from international travelers or immigrants.
The market for a stand-alone TT vaccine vanished worldwide due to WHO recommendations to stop the sales of the TT vaccine. Which was due to the relatively few, economically stressed countries where diphtheria is still an issue. So, therefore, the only facility manufacturing the TT vaccine was shut down within the last year.
The blowback from the WHO recommendations is that now there is a shortage of tetanus and diphtheria (Td) vaccine in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.
This all comes down to poor planning. And illustrates why supply chain issues and infectious disease countermeasure stockpiles are essential considerations for governments.
The good news is that unless one is immunosuppressed, most of us have almost lifelong immunity against tetanus and diphtheria.
My recommendation is that unless one gets a very deep and dirty puncture wound and has not had a tetanus shot in over ten years or longer, avoid that booster.
Here is the ugly secret about influenza vaccines. They are given to protect one group of vulnerable people. Those who are immunosuppressed, and that cohort includes the very elderly.
If those influenza vaccine manufacturing plants only make enough vaccines for those susceptible to a severe case of the flu, there would not be enough of a market to sustain their production costs. Furthermore, if there were a pandemic of some sort of highly pathogenic influenza, there would not be sufficient capacity to make enough vaccines to meet demand.
Egg-based influenza vaccine production requires super “clean” eggs; about 100 million “clean” fertilized eggs are needed annually for vaccine production in the US alone. Candidate vaccine viruses are injected into the eggs. If the process is shuttered, the whole production comes to a screeching halt. Many vaccines can be stored for long periods. Even as long as a decade. This stockpiling system works well for DNA viruses with a low mutation rate. Stockpiling is rarely a solution for vaccines developed for RNA viruses that mutate rapidly.
Therefore, the influenza vaccine is pushed on the American people year after year. As a way to maintain “warm base manufacturing” and ensure sufficient market size to support industrial operations.
I have spoken on this subject at the WHO and US government agencies, as well as many, many conferences. Unfortunately, because the mRNA and RNA vaccine platforms require a lot of freezer space (commonly -20°C) to stockpile for even short periods, this limits the ability to stockpile. Furthermore, the frozen storage requirements are only for up to 6 months. That means stockpiling for more extended storage is not currently done, and it is back to square one on the supply chain issue.
The issue with freezer space and mRNA vaccines is one that most likely won’t be solved. This benefits the manufacturers of this vaccine technology – the US government has an endless need for new vaccines as the old ones expire.
My small hope is that the mRNA platform will be too costly to justify its continued use, as appeals concerning safety (or lack of) seem to fall on deaf FDA ears.
In the meantime, don’t believe the hype generated by ex-officials from the Biden and Trump administrations.
Both Dr. Lena Wen, CNN correspondent, and Dr. Redfield, ex-director of the CDC, have gone on to mainstream media shows and promoted the narrative that the case fatality rate for avian influenza is over 50 percent. This, frankly, is a lie that the WHO is promoting. Bird flu generally is not tested for when someone has flu symptoms. When an outbreak of avian flu occurs on a poultry farm, testing of farm workers who are seriously ill will commence. This has led to the generation of the 890 case reports since 2003. Of those seriously ill patients reported to the WHO, over 50 percent died.
This is not an actual case fatality rate of avian flu around the world. It is, again, a sampling error due to a tiny data set derived from those who are at greatest risk due to general health. And just like the WHO reported on an exaggerated case fatality rate for mPOX, which was also based on a sampling error, or for Covid-19, again a sampling error, it is now used to justify psychological bioterrorism on the world population. Please don’t fall for it.
El Gato Malo on X succinctly points out that Dr. Leana Wen and her public health ilk are advancing:
1. Do more of the same lousy testing used in Covid-19 to overstate a disease and cause panic.
2. Develop another non-sterilizing non-vaccine that does not work to be pushed on “the vulnerable.”
3. Doing it “right now” under EUA, so whoever makes these tests and jabs can cash in and be shielded from liability.
4. Claiming that proxies like “triggers antibody production” demonstrate clinical clinical efficacy.
It’s just one last smash-and-grab for cash before the Brandon administration ends. Anyone who falls for this one will truly fall for anything.
Question: what are Leana’s conflicts of interest? Who is paying her or giving her grants?
For those that haven’t viewed Dr. Redfield speaking of the avian flu case fatality rate, have a watch below. It is genuinely shocking. This fear-mongering comes from an ex-director of the CDC. Shame on him.
Frankly, it reminds me of the 51 intelligence officials claiming that Hunter Biden’s laptop was fake.
One has to wonder what conflict of interest motivated him to say this on national TV?
Remember in the US, there have been 62 cases of avian influenza discovered, and all but one case were very mild.
This deep dive into the supply chain issues is meant to show that public health has put itself into a groupthink situation that it can’t escape.
Many solutions to this quandary do not involve an evermore expanding schedule of vaccinations, stockpiled for some future use. I have some general thoughts before I sign off.
The use of early treatments via safe, proven drugs is a good solution.
We now have many antibiotics to treat bacterial infections. Vaccines do not always need to be our first defense.
Our medical system is very good at treating infectious diseases. The risks from such diseases are much less than it once was. People do not have to live in fear of infectious disease. I like to ask people, how many people do you know have died of flu? If you know of any (I don’t), how old were they?
The need to scare people into more and more vaccines is a dangerous trend.
And yes, the more vaccinations one receives, the more likely an adverse event.
Vaccinating pregnant women and babies should always be a last resort.
It is time for Congress to rethink the vaccine liability laws.
America’s promise of accountability, once the clarion call of our Founding Fathers, now finds itself muffled beneath a wall of excessive secrecy. The so-called fourth branch of government—the unelected bureaucratic state—has weaponized overclassification to limit transparency and accountability. Also called the Deep State, these entrenched bureaucrats use secrecy to enshrine their power, preventing congressional oversight and even hindering a sitting president from implementing meaningful reforms. The byzantine rules and regulations cloaked in classified information make it nearly impossible for the president, his administration or journalists to understand what is really happening within the federal agencies. The recent case of USAID blocking the Trump administration‘s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from auditing its humanitarian aid programs is just the latest example of how secrecy is wielded to protect the bureaucratic class from accountability. If Trump is to dismantle the Deep State, he must first break its stranglehold on classified information.
The Bureaucratic Black Hole of Classification
The march toward unchecked classification is neither recent nor accidental. From the modest safeguards envisioned by our early republic to the expansive, often nebulous standards codified in Obama’s Executive Order 13526, the Deep State has systematically entrenched secrecy as a mechanism of self-preservation. The Brennan Center for Justice’s estimate—that up to 90 percent of classified documents could be safely disclosed—should alarm every citizen who cherishes a government that is answerable to its people. When transparency is sacrificed on the altar of “sensitive information,” the democratic process is undermined; accountability is traded for convenience.
Historical Parallels
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, warned against a government that operated behind closed doors, recognizing that secrecy was the lifeblood of tyranny. The modern overclassification problem mirrors the suppression of the Pentagon Papers, where government officials classified documents not to protect national security, but to hide the failures of the Vietnam War. The same tactics persist today, as bureaucrats wield secrecy like a shield, deflecting public oversight and preserving their power.
Consider the curious case of USAID, an agency whose humanitarian mission is paradoxically shrouded in the same secrecy reserved for covert operations. During Trump’s first term, senior USAID security officials obstructed his team’s efforts to audit the agency. Initially, Trump did not fully grasp the extent of this obstruction; now, armed with experience and his DOGE team, he is confronting and dismantling these overclassification schemes. When USAID officials blocked his DOGE team this time around, they were placed on leave—a move that allowed the audit to commence. The scandal surrounding USAID thus reveals that excessive secrecy serves not to protect national security but to stifle meaningful reform and insulate power from both the executive and legislative branches.
When Secrecy Kills
The implications of overclassification extend well beyond mere opacity. The tragic lessons of September 11, as chronicled in the eponymous Commission Report, illustrate that the labyrinthine nature of modern classification hindered the timely sharing of crucial intelligence—a failure that contributed to one of the gravest security breaches in American history. The same dynamic played out during the COVID-19 pandemic when essential information on the virus’ origins and early spread was locked behind classified barriers, leaving the public and policymakers scrambling in the dark. Today, as agencies continue to guard their files with a zeal that borders on paranoia, the resulting fragmentation and internal rivalry sap our collective national defense. When agencies operate in silos, a fragmented picture of potential threats emerges, weakening the nation’s ability to preempt danger.
The Hidden Cost of Secrecy
Financially, the hidden costs are staggering. Taxpayers shoulder an $18 billion annual burden to sustain these classified systems—a sum that could instead fortify more productive public endeavors. Meanwhile, scholars, journalists and even elected officials are forced to navigate an overgrown thicket of red tape in pursuit of records that, by all rights, should be part of the public domain. The Public Interest Declassification Board’s stark characterization of our system as “outmoded, unsustainable, and fundamentally at odds with the principles of a free society” is not hyperbole; it is an urgent diagnosis of a bureaucratic malaise that must be cured.
Trump’s War on the Classification Cartel
President Trump, now in his second term, has a unique opportunity to dismantle this excessive secrecy. Unlike his predecessors, he has no allegiance to the entrenched bureaucratic class that thrives on classification as a means of self-preservation. With Elon Musk leading the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a sweeping overhaul of declassification is within reach. This effort should include:
Mandatory Declassification Reviews: All classified materials older than 15 years should be automatically reviewed for declassification, with only the most sensitive exceptions allowed.
Severe Penalties for Overclassification: Bureaucrats who misuse classification to conceal incompetence or wrongdoing should face strict penalties, including termination.
Protection for Whistleblowers: Those who expose abusive classification practices should be shielded from retaliation and offered legal avenues for challenging improper secrecy.
Public Access Portals: A streamlined system should be implemented to allow journalists and citizens to request declassification more efficiently, modeled after the Freedom of Information Act but with fewer loopholes.
By dismantling the excessive secrecy that has long shrouded the inner workings of government, we can reestablish a system where transparency and accountability are not sacrificed at the altar of expedience. Reagan famously declared, “Trust, but verify.” Yet modern bureaucrats have rewritten that to read, “Trust us, and don’t ask questions.” George Orwell’s 1984 warned of an all-powerful government that buries inconvenient truths; we are perilously close to living out that warning.
Jefferson warned that government without oversight becomes despotic; Reagan championed the notion that the more a government controls information, the less it serves its people. The Deep State’s unchecked power, fortified by overclassification, has allowed it to operate as an unelected fourth branch of government, immune to both congressional oversight and executive authority.
If Trump is to truly gut the Deep State, he must first dismantle its classification fortress. A government that dares to reveal its operations is a government that earns the trust of its citizens, ensuring that power remains checked and that democratic ideals are not consigned to the shadows. The path forward is clear: restore openness, rein in bureaucratic discretion and renew the covenant between the state and the governed.
Forget about why we Americans are armed for a moment. Don’t give any thought to the reasoning of the Founding Fathers and what they were doing when they drafted, then passed, the Second Amendment. Disregard the court cases, arguments, myths and fears — push all that aside. You care about these, sure, and see it as essential. You latch your Second Amendment hopes on those sorts of things. But surprise — none of that matters. It simply doesn’t matter to society’s adversaries — criminals who arm themselves.
They Walk Among Us
It’s already well-established gun control doesn’t work. Criminals the world over are already armed. The cause? It’s because the Chinese invented gunpowder in the 9th century. Add centuries of human ingenuity and here we are. The Founders are in no way responsible for armed villains around the world and they’re certainly not responsible for it here. The criminals are responsible solely and completely. They choose and acquire weapons then stand outside of control. If gunpowder ceased to exist villains would remain. They would switch to edged weapons or clubs. It’s not the guns.
We have criminals on some streets (but not all); they’re in our schools; they run black ops to provide drugs, sex and anything else a demanding public wants that government forbids. A lapel pin famously says, “Disarm Criminals First.” But evidence shows this doesn’t work. Splashy public efforts to disarm affect only the good guys, the innocent, the protectors of peace, safety, law, order — essentially you and me. The pretzel gun in front of the U.N. isn’t a statement against the armed thugs and tyrants running that place. It’s aimed at innocent civilians, us.
Just for the record, the endless delightful global world peace the pretzel-gun worshippers seek is of course utopian. It exists nowhere. While the human condition contains what I call the Four Horsemen of Human Havoc — angry, hungry, stupid and wicked — we are doomed to a turbulent world. Your options are limited, but you do have some. Hungry we might be able to solve, angry only in your dreams with endless psychiatry and soma in the water. But stupid and especially wicked, are part and parcel of this existence. This begins to answer the question I posed when we started. It’s about the villains.
It Ain’t The Crime …
Many gun enthusiasts and Second Amendment supporters make the mistaken assumption we are armed to protect ourselves from them … “the criminal element.” While true, it’s short-sighted and incomplete. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and the rest were well aware of the self-defense values of firearms. They faced dangers in a new land, wild animals on four and two legs, criminal activity in a largely lawless land, often with too much distance between them to simply call for help. Self-reliance and independence required the ability to police your own surroundings. It was simply understood. That right and reality of self-defense harkens all the way back to the Bible. But self-defense was not the main driver of their desire for an armed public.
The fundamental reason the Founders wanted us armed is for balance of power. Self-governance had never been tried. Worldwide, rulers were armed. In classic time-honored style, they use that capability, that monopoly of force, against the people they supposedly serve. Power corrupts — and possession of power frees those with it to act as they please — a two-way street! By spreading power around, freeing everyone, we achieved a level of liberty unimagined.
Democidal Tendencies
If you’re reading this, you likely know genocides of the past were preceded by disarmament campaigns, orchestrated by “officials,” who then go on to commit atrocities and democide once the population is de-fanged. Democide — murder by government — claims the very top mass-murder statistic. Street thugs and police don’t hold a candle. Last century it cost 262 million lives by the best estimates available (U.S. historian Rudolph Rummel). The slaughtered were generally defenseless. That right there is why we’re armed. And that right there is why America is and remains the land of the free: because we’re armed. Thoughts of messing with us gives villains pause.
Now this isn’t to say even this system is perfect, far from it, and we all know it. While anti-rights monsters will insist our unique right to arms — exceedingly well-implemented — has something to do with the fact criminals exist, we know better. Malfeasants are active and sometimes horrific but being armed and being evil are unrelated concepts. America’s 100 million gun owners basically never shoot anything but targets and food. The anti-rights bigots may holler guns kill people. We know guns protect people. Guns are good. If guns disappeared, we would have to re-invent them.
Guns keep the peace. Action-at-a-distance from a firearm far exceeds the value of a broadsword. Sam Colt’s great equalizer works on the person-to-person scale, and writ large, against the entire artifice of civilization. Villains will conduct their villainy. Accept it. Guns, and people who bear them righteously, watch over and protect all of us. And that’s why we’re armed.
Fear and hatred of guns have unintended consequences; political fallout and dangers which are largely missed in the running monologues that pass for “news” in America today.
Age-old wisdom suggesting knowledge of guns leading to harm is incorrect, according to leading experts on both sides of the aisle. People who avoid guns, and refuse to discuss the subject, exhibit fear bordering on paranoia, leading to accidents, defenselessness, and potentially dire consequences. Criminals now running rampant on a small number of American streets have virtually no training, and certainly don’t represent the values of marksmanship and firearms education, which generally lead to self-control and responsibility.
“A person who knows nothing about guns, and preserves that ignorance with great vigor, which many anti-gun people do, harms society’s fabric by promoting counter-productive law, hampering police efforts and putting children at risk,” I noted in a recent public speech. Starbucks, as a case in point, had ignorantly refused to serve armed police officers, people tasked with protecting society. How did that help anyone? It simply showed their disdain for something good.
Projection?
“Many people who fear guns secretly harbor internal rage, just waiting to break into violence upon some slight provocation. They project this instability onto others, falsely assuming anyone with a firearm will eventually erupt into violence and injure others — as they believe they might do, according to Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. “They cannot imagine most people are not also plagued by the demons under which they suffer. So, they fear guns and believe everyone should be disarmed, just as they don’t trust themselves from erupting into violence,” he said. Mr. Marbut is a firearms instructor accepted as an expert witness in state and federal courts concerning self-defense, use of force and firearms safety. His cogent testimony has helped defendants wrongly charged by misguided anti-gun prosecutors.
Heavily credentialed firearms training expert and author Stephen P. Wenger notes that gun-fearing folks have what’s called “poor impulse control” and project that onto others. The lack of understanding gunless people exhibit leads to laws that affect the innocent and ignore the criminal element, which I have personally witnessed repeatedly in legislatures nationwide. People with terror in their eyes and myths on their lips over imagined dangers band together, hire lobbyists, and rally for laws to disarm people who haven’t done anything.
Real Responsibility
The gun-fearful flatly ignore actual perpetrators entirely. Frequently, the criminal perps are people of color or other “disadvantaged” types (ethnic, immigrant, poor, released prisoners, gang members) who they are afraid to single out or implicate out of fear of being called names like “racist.”
Red-flag laws are an example. Notice these laws let police confiscate your property on hearsay and without a trial, merely on suspicion of you being a potential mass murderer. Afterwards, they just set you loose back on the streets. How much more dangerous could a plan be? “You haven’t done anything, so we’re letting you out. Go buy a chainsaw, matches and some gasoline. You’re not angry at the person who had you detained, are you?” Red-flag laws were drafted by the gun-control lobby, without evidence that they work, based on their desire “to make guns go away.”
Authorities might take “your gun” for a while, but that doesn’t put you in the database preventing you from buying another gun, because you lack guilt or a conviction necessary to be included. And they may not check to see if you already have several guns. It’s an irrational response to psychotic mass murderers and sociopathic children seeking to slaughter their classmates.
Also at issue are prosecutors — or perhaps lack of prosecutors — willing to prosecute, using laws we have to incarcerate truly dangerous people using guns for illegal purposes. That’s how we get felons on our streets with mile-long rap sheets, committing one serious crime after another. In an insidious way, this serves a valuable purpose. It keeps gunless people terrified, clamoring for more so-called “gun control,” which increases government power. Just take the guns away and we’ll all be safe while leaving officials armed to the teeth. Right. The fact it hasn’t worked for decades doesn’t seem to enter the equation, and efforts continue to hamper the innocent.
There is no known way to reliably make or staff a “pre-crime” bureau, according to forensic experts, and catch psychopaths before they act out. That’s a fanciful feature of sci-fi films, with no place in the real world. “It’s hoplophobic,” said Dr. Bruce Eimer, Ph.D., a police forensic psychologist, “just a manifestation of irrational fears. Those people promoting such things need help, but typically refuse any.” Red-flag laws are delusions, typically promoted by gunless people, to quell their fears, without any hope of success.
Take a person against firearms to a shooting range, an often-reliable cure for their phobia, and help improve the safety of the nation. Dr. Eimer would advise it.
Bill Gates has been incredibly involved in shaping politics and policy, not just in the United States, but all over the world.
But now he has a massive issue with Elon Musk doing the same.
The multibillionaire Microsoft co-founder bemoaned the sudden influence of Musk on American and European politics in an interview published Saturday by The Times.
The British newspaper pressed Gates in the wide-ranging conversation to react as Musk enters the global political fray. The magazine, ironically enough, asked Gates if he wished that he “had got more involved in influencing politics like Elon Musk.”
“Not at all,” Gates responded.
“I thought the rules of the game were you picked a finite number of things to spout about that you cared for, focused on a few critical things, rather than telling people who they should vote for,” he told the outlet.
“For me it’s only ever about aid. I did think Brexit was a mistake, but I wasn’t tweeting every day,” Gates insisted.
Gates may not have the same style of political engagement as Musk’s off-the-cuff use of X, the social media platform he bought three years ago, or his appearance at rallies for Donald Trump.
But make no mistake. Gates is as political as they come.
Gates has thrown around his influence and his money, especially by means of the Gates Foundation, to move the policy conversation in his direction, especially on topics like climate change and public health.
Just two years ago, for instance, the Gates Foundation dumped $40 million into highly controversial mRNA manufacturing projects in Africa.
Gates has also been involved with buying American farmland, seemingly to encourage meat alternatives and other purported climate-friendly agriculture activities.
But remember, Musk is the actual problem for supporting Trump, raising awareness of the groomer gangs in the United Kingdom, and encouraging Germany to be a sovereign nation, or so says Gates.
“I’m ultra-different. It’s really insane that he can destabilize the political situations in countries,” Gates claimed to The Times.
“I think in the U.S. foreigners aren’t allowed to give money; other countries maybe should adopt safeguards to make sure super-rich foreigners aren’t distorting their elections,” he continued.
Conservative commentator Victor Davis Hanson said what many Gates skeptics were thinking: “Is he joking, or simply completely misinformed?”
Beyond the long history of global activism from Gates, Hanson reminded social media that the billionaire was dead silent about various other forms of foreign political interference from the global left, including in the United States.
That includes Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who “who interfered in the 2016 presidential election by fabricating a venomous dossier to destroy the Trump campaign,” and much more recently, the fact that the Labour Party in Britain called for British activists to “swarm American swing states in service to the 2024 Kamala Harris campaign.”
Like other leftists who attack Musk and his affinity for the global right, Gates is not upset about a billionaire involving himself in politics.
Gates is only mad that the world’s richest man is not channeling his billions toward the global left instead.
“So, sir. Gates, spare us you very selective outage about Mr. Musk, given your prior deafening silence on hired foreign interference here and Democratic efforts to interfere in the elections of others,” Hanson added.
From reassigning Democratic operatives to shutting down the J6 prosecution, the new Department of Justice isn’t wasting any time cleaning house while waiting for Pam Bondi’s Senate confirmation.
Senate Democrats last week put on hold the confirmation process for Pam Bondi, President Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general. Her full Senate approval appears inevitable but Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee claimed they wanted more time to review her background file. Another hearing is scheduled for Wednesday; a vote to advance her nomination out of the committee is expected later that day.
But if Democrats had hoped postponing Bondi’s confirmation would delay the Trump administration’s carpet bombing of the Department of Justice, they are once again wrong. In fact, Trump’s DOJ is wasting no time reversing the dangerous course set by Joe Biden and Merrick Garland while redirecting resources from the now-closed January 6 prosecution to fight real security threats across the country.
Shortly after the president took the oath of office last Monday, several Trump appointees were sworn in at Main Justice to fill top posts at the department. James McHenry, a longtime immigration lawyer at the DOJ, will serve as acting attorney general until Bondi takes over; the move appears to underscore the president’s plans to prioritize immigration enforcement at the department.
Emil Bove, who represented the president in both the Alvin Bragg case in New York and former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case in Florida, is now the acting deputy attorney general. Bove traveled to Chicago over the weekend to meet with Trump’s border czar Tom Homan and other federal law enforcement officials to coordinate mass deportations, which are underway in the Windy City. One official told ABC News that Bove had “personally observe[d] DHS immigration enforcement operations and support[ed] the efforts of FBI, DEA, ATF, USMS, and federal prosecutors who are assisting DHS in this critical mission.”
Other appointments include Omeed Assefi as acting chief of the DOJ’s antitrust division until Trump’s pick, Gail Slater, is confirmed. According to Bloomberg, Assefi sent a video message to the division’s staff last week to pledge an “aggressive stance going forward,” including pursuing investigations and lawsuits against Big Tech—which might explain all the sucking up by Big Tech titans before and on Inauguration Day.
“Can I Take My Swingline Stapler?”
At the same time, notorious political operatives inside the DOJ are getting the Milton from “Office Space” treatment, moved from their cushy role doing the dirty work of the Democratic Party to offices where they might actually get their polished fingernails dirty. George Toscas—a top National Security Division official who looked into the Hillary Clinton email server “matter,” helped initiate the FBI’s surveillance of the 2016 Trump campaign, and pushed for the armed raid of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022—has been reassigned to a newly-created unit at the DOJ to fight efforts by lawless “sanctuary cities” to obstruct deportation plans. Toscas was last seen giving former Attorney General Merrick Garland a bear hug during his grotesque Dear Leader-like march on his last day in office.
Corey Amundson, who as head of the DOJ’s public integrity unit fought hard against an FBI investigation into election fraud in Georgia in 2020, also has a new desk at the immigration unit. At least 20 DOJ employees reportedly have been moved to other positions.
This is all super unfair, according to one former assistant U.S. Attorney. “It has terrified people,” Ashley Akers, a J6 prosecutor who resigned last week, complained to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. “It’s not sensical. You have people who are subject matter experts…and to pull them and put them in an unrelated section where they have no experience and probably on interest seems contrary to the mission of the department.”
Depoliticizing the Most Political Agency in the Land
Now Akers might be slightly bitter since her last act in office was undoing her own prosecution of several J6 defendants. Following the president’s full pardon of J6ers, prosecutors in the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office, which handled the unprecedented investigation for four years, were forced to file dismissal motions before D.C. judges. Further, the office has a new chief, Ed Martin, a longtime conservative activist who was sworn in as acting D.C. U.S. Attorney last Monday afternoon. Martin immediately filed a flurry of motions to dismiss J6 indictments and confronted at least one judge attempting to keep in place probation for some of the 14 defendants whose sentences were commuted by the president.
And in a move cheered by J6ers, the DOJ also removed the “Capitol Breach” database from the department’s website. The portal listed the name, case number, charges, outcome, and sentence for every J6er, something defendants considered a scarlet-letter tracking mechanism of sorts to incite more harassment against them.
The DOJ’s targeting of pro-life protesters, arguably the Biden/Garland’s DOJ most vengeful and political use of federal law, also came to an end. New chief of staff Chad Mizelle on Friday sent a memo to the civil rights division strictly curtailing the application of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE ACT; the Biden/Garland DOJ prosecuted at least two dozen pro-life activists under the FACE ACT, resulting in lengthy prison sentences for most including women in their 70s. “President Donald Trump campaigned on the promise of ending the weaponization of the federal government and has recently directed all federal departments and agencies to identify and correct the past weaponization of law enforcement. To many Americans, prosecutions and civil actions under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act have been the prototypical example of this weaponization. And with good reason,” Mizelle wrote.
Trump also pardoned 23 pro-lifers on the eve of the March for Life; several were immediately released from prison including 76-year-old Joan Bell, who was serving out a 27-month sentence imposed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, an 80-year old federal judge in Washington. (Karma will be a bitch for these evil DC judges.)
More Changes Ahead
Bondi still has her work cut out for her—rooting out bad actors within the department’s whopping 34,000 employee base won’t be easy. She may face headwinds from Senate Republicans afraid to pursue much-needed internal investigations into Jack Smith and his team as well as former DC US Attorney Matthew Graves for bringing vindictive, selective prosecutions against the president and his supporters.
But reform and accountability are already underway. The once-revered Department of Justice suffers a deep public trust deficit following a decade of relentless politically charged lawfare against Republicans. It appears, however, that the right team is in place to restore that public’s trust and return the DOJ to its original crime-fighting mission—something the country desperately needs.
The Department of Justice is finally being reclaimed from the grips of partisan weaponization. President Trump’s administration, in its second term, is delivering a long-overdue reckoning. Over 20 career officials, entrenched in a culture of bias and selective enforcement, have been sidelined overnight. This isn’t just a shake-up—it’s a war against the corruption that has festered for years under the guise of justice. Trump’s team is not just draining the swamp; they are dismantling it, brick by brick, to restore fairness and accountability to an institution that has betrayed the American people.
The abrupt sidelining of over 20 long-serving DOJ officials marks the death knell of what conservatives rightly decried as the “Merrick Garland Reign of Terror.” For years, Garland’s DOJ symbolized the grotesque transformation of justice into a political weapon, targeting Trump and his allies while coddling Democratic operatives. This two-tiered system eroded trust in one of America’s most critical institutions. But with Trump’s return to the White House, the administration is laser-focused on uprooting this corruption and restoring equal justice under the law.
President Trump’s team has employed an ingenious strategy to bypass bureaucratic roadblocks. Federal regulations shield career employees from reassignment for 120 days after new leadership takes over. However, the Trump administration identified a loophole:
Because Acting Attorney General James McHenry has been with the DOJ for more than 120 days, he is not bound by federal regulations requiring a waiting period before reassigning career employees. If Pam Bondi were confirmed, she would have to wait 120 days to make similar changes. Ironically, Senate Democrats’ delays in confirming Bondi have provided Trump with a unique advantage to expedite the much-needed house-cleaning at the DOJ. McHenry’s tenure as the head of a Justice Department unit focused on immigration enforcement underscores his alignment with Trump’s vision of law and order. By the time Pam Bondi is confirmed the McHenry should have purged the corrupt actors at Justice. Together, this team exemplifies the administration’s unwavering commitment to dismantling the deep state and restoring integrity to the DOJ.
The reshuffling of DOJ leadership is nothing short of revolutionary. Ed Martin, a champion of election integrity and leader in the “Stop the Steal” movement, now holds the position of Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin’s appointment is a clarion call to those who weaponized the legal system against conservatives: their time is up. Martin’s record of defending January 6 defendants and his unwavering stance against abortion and illegal immigration sends a powerful message about the administration’s priorities. Just the other day, when Judge Mehta, at the behest of congressional Democrats, modified Trump’s commutation of eight January 6th political prisoners Martin was on the case filing a motion challenging Judge Mehta’s imposition of release conditions on the commuted sentences of January 6th defendants.
John Durham’s legacy also finds new life in the Eastern District of New York, where his son now leads. Known for his relentless pursuit of criminal networks like MS-13, Durham’s son reflects the administration’s no-nonsense approach to crime and immigration enforcement. In the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon—renowned for prosecuting Sam Bankman-Fried and dismantling sex trafficking rings—brings a pedigree that includes clerking for Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon. Her appointment signals a return to principled, results-driven law enforcement.
The FBI, long accused of partisan overreach, is undergoing a seismic transformation. Christopher Wray, whose leadership became synonymous with the politicization of federal law enforcement, has been removed. Paul Abbate has retired. Taking the reins is Tom Ferguson, a former FBI veteran who worked alongside Rep. Jim Jordan to expose the weaponization of government. Ferguson’s disdain for “woke” ideology and socialism underscores his commitment to restoring the FBI’s mission of impartial justice. With these changes, the FBI is finally being returned to the people. Until Kash Patel, President Trump’s pick for FBI Director, is confirmed by the Senate, Ferguson’s leadership ensures the Bureau will remain in good hands, continuing the administration’s efforts to purge corruption and restore accountability.
This is not just a personnel change; it is an existential challenge to the deep state, the network of bureaucratic elites who have long wielded power without accountability. For years, conservatives have watched as these entrenched interests undermined Trump’s presidency and targeted his supporters. The Trump administration’s bold appointments are dismantling this shadowy cabal, replacing it with leaders who prioritize justice over ideology and accountability over partisan gain.
The Trump DOJ overhaul represents a historic correction to years of corruption and abuse. For too long, the Department of Justice and the FBI have been weaponized against conservatives, eroding public trust and undermining the rule of law. Under President Trump’s leadership, the era of unchecked bureaucratic power is coming to a dramatic end. This is not merely a shake-up; it is a reformation, a decisive step toward restoring America’s faith in its institutions. The swamp is being drained, the deep state is being exposed, and justice is finally being reclaimed for the American people. Trump promised to fix the system, and as we witness these changes, one thing is clear: he is delivering.
Hello liberal haters. As you’re eye scanning this, I can only assume you’re trying to pick your tears out of your cosmopolitans as the second Donald Trump administration is underway. It’s the end of democracy, you’re saying — but at least former President Joe Biden did the proper thing by allowing a “dignified transition of democratic power,” or whatever term you’ve doubtlessly aped from MSNBC’s coverage of the inauguration shindig.
Well, let me disabuse you of two of the facts implicit in that thought. First, Joe Biden isn’t making any decisions on his own these days, except maybe what ice-cream flavor he gets for not reading the teleprompter instructions. Second, as first lady Melania Trump pointed out in an interview before the inauguration, keep in mind that the Obamas — the beau ideal of the leftist presidential couple — didn’t warmly participate in the transition of power back in 2017.
During the sit-down with Fox News’ Ainsley Earhardt, Melania Trump talked about the “challenging transition” the first time Trump entered the White House.
“The difference is I know where I will be going, I know the rooms where we will be living. I know the process,” Melania said during the interview, which aired on Jan. 13, when asked what had changed since her 2017 move-in to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
“The first time was challenging, we didn’t have much of the information,” she added.
“The information was [withheld] for us from [the] previous administration,” she added.
This time, she said, she’s “already packed” for the move-in.
“It’s [a] very different transition second time around,” she said.
She was asked whether the Bidens had helped her out this time around.
“They’re still living there, and they will be out on Jan. 20,” she said. “The transition team has only five hours to move Bidens out and to move us in.”
Michelle didn’t attend Jimmy Carter’s state funeral on Jan. 9, reportedly due to a “scheduling conflict” with her vacation (because apparently, the avocation of former first lady as a professional calling isn’t enough of a vacation for her). This time, a source leaked to People Magazine, it’s because she really, really, really hates the living hell out of Donald Trump. (The source didn’t use those exact words, instead saying Michelle didn’t want to “plaster” on a fake grin for the sake of paying homage to the principle of the unbroken transfer of power.)
“There’s no overstating her feelings about [Trump]. She’s not one to plaster on a pleasant face and pretend for protocol’s sake,” the source said.
“Michelle doesn’t do anything because it’s expected or it’s protocol or tradition.
“She would be expected to swallow her feelings in the spotlight if she attended his second inauguration.”
The magazine also noted, the source told them “that Trump’s history of attacking the Obama family” played into her decision. Oh, yes, because the Obamas have been great to Trump over the years.
As for Trump being “someone whom she still considers a threat to American democracy,” as the source also claimed, most of this rhetoric has Barack Obama as patient zero — with the former president first dismissing Donald Trump as some peon who had made his money before he got into politics instead of getting into politics to make money, then hyping him as Literally Hitler™, with the rest of the Democrats and the media gladly following his lead and declaring that they were With Her.
But I’ll stop myself before I give everyone a migraine over the double-standard. The point is that, beneath their carefully manufactured exteriors — their preternatural scripted cool, their improbably hipster-perfect book choices and playlists, their worshipful treatment by an adoring media — these are petty, vain, and childish creatures. To the extent that the Bidens look any better, it’s just because the power half of the couple passed the point of senility before he was elected in 2020 and only went downhill from there.
If you want to see what class and unity looks like, watch Melania state the unpleasant realities about how the Democrats acted during her husband’s two inaugurations herself — no anonymous source leaking quotes about how a girlboss former first lady refuses to “plaster on a pleasant face and pretend for protocol’s sake” to a trash celeb rag — with a smile on her face and with reserve and poise. It’s what real confidence and courage looks like.
In short: Keep crying those tears in your cosmos, libs. That cosmo is going to be 99 percent saline by the time January is over, and it’ll only get better for America from there.
fox files 
Recent Comments