The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘trump’

Conservatives Targeted Abroad: Lawfare Moves Raise Alarms And Go Global: The EU Has Now Criminalized Conservatism.


© European Union, 2025, CC BY 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

In 2016, when Donald J. Trump did the unthinkable and defeated Hillary Clinton, it was not merely a disruption of the expected political cycle. It was an ontological rupture in the worldview of the globalist establishment. That elite, forged in the gleaming chambers of Davos, Brussels, and Foggy Bottom, had spent decades constructing an ideological palace upon the belief that the arc of history had bent, permanently, toward supranationalism. Trump bulldozed the edifice.

To the stewards of the so-called “Rules-Based International Order,” Trump’s rise was not just electoral misfortune, it was apostasy. His sins were theological: he questioned NATO’s utility, dismissed climate crusades, mocked international treaties, and, most unforgivable, declared that he would put America first. That phrase, so simple yet so devastating to the mandarins of multilateralism, signaled something deeper: the resurrection of sovereignty. It could not be allowed to stand.

By 2021, the counterattack had taken shape. Legal warfare, once the exclusive domain of banana republics, was rebranded and refined as a tool of elite preservation. The strategy: if the ballot box produces the wrong result, change the judge. If the people err, prosecute their champion. Trump was hit with a fusillade of indictments, not because he is unusually corrupt, but because he is unusually disruptive. The pattern has metastasized. From Paris to Bucharest, Caracas to Dublin, nationalist leaders are being purged not by plebiscite but by process.

Marine Le Pen, once again the front-runner in the French presidential race, was neatly removed from contention through a judicial maneuver so timed and tidy one might mistake it for satire. On March 27, 2025, she was sentenced to a two-year suspended prison term and barred from public office for five years, effectively ending her 2027 candidacy. The charge? Alleged misuse of European Parliament funds, a case launched in 2016, revived without fanfare just as her polling numbers peaked. Over a dozen members of her National Rally party were likewise ensnared. The message was unmistakable: challenge Brussels, and you will be removed. Not debated. Not defeated. Removed.

The United States, now again under Trump’s leadership, has taken unprecedented steps to confront this new form of transnational political suppression. In May 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio authorized an investigatory mission to France to examine the legal proceedings against Le Pen. The US team, which includes career diplomats and legal observers, will assess whether international norms regarding democratic participation and judicial impartiality were violated. According to one senior State Department official, “If the US is to champion democracy, we cannot turn a blind eye when it is strangled by procedure rather than preserved by principle.”

Nor is France alone. In the United Kingdom, where political prosecutions increasingly cloak themselves in “hate speech” jurisprudence, Trump has dispatched a parallel team to review the jailing of Lucy Connolly, a populist firebrand arrested for what British authorities describe as incitement against migrants. Her defenders argue that her speech, however inflammatory, was plainly political. She was not tried by jury but condemned by a panel whose allegiance to the ruling party is, at best, suspect. American officials have requested transcripts, court documents, and access to Connolly’s legal team. The message, again, is clear: the Trump administration intends to confront, not accommodate, global lawfare.

In Eastern Europe, the illusion of democratic procedure has been similarly weaponized. Romania’s presidential election in November 2024 was upended when nationalist outsider Călin Georgescu, who won the first round, was suddenly declared ineligible. The cause? Accusations of Russian interference, though no credible evidence was ever produced. Within days, he was arrested for “communicating false information” and “promoting fascism,” charges as conveniently vague as they are politically lethal. His removal nullified the voters’ verdict.

One need not endorse Georgescu’s views to grasp the threat. When the people’s will is retroactively invalidated through judicial intervention, democracy becomes a simulation, not a reality. Once again, Trump has responded. The State Department has contacted Romanian authorities requesting a detailed account of the court’s findings and the legal basis for the annulment. While critics call the intervention unprecedented, defenders argue that America’s moral leadership depends upon its willingness to challenge injustice, even when it wears a robe.

This new approach marks a decisive philosophical shift. Previous administrations, from Bush to Biden, paid homage to the international order even as it rotted from within. Trump, by contrast, treats sovereignty not as a relic but as a right. His foreign policy assumes that democracy means self-determination, not elite curation. The investigation into Le Pen’s case is not mere theater; it is the first salvo in a counteroffensive against the weaponization of law.

The trend is global and unmistakable. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro is ensnared in a judicial spiderweb designed to prevent his political resurrection. Ireland has prepared charges against Conor McGregor under nebulous “hate speech” provisions. In Pakistan, Imran Khan sits in prison, his party decapitated before elections could be held. In Turkey, Istanbul’s mayor has been jailed for alleged ties to terrorism, charges his supporters regard as fiction. In each case, the pattern is the same. Nationalists rise, globalists recoil, courts intervene.

And still the architects of this jurisprudential coup insist they are defending democracy. But as any student of logic will note, defending democracy by voiding elections is a contradiction. If democracy is to mean anything, it must include the right to elect those whom the elite loathe. Otherwise, it is mere spectacle.

Trump’s willingness to use the diplomatic tools of the US government to expose this farce is both bold and necessary. If France or the UK can banish their opposition with the stroke of a judge’s pen, then the lesson is simple: legality is not justice. The law, once a shield for the people, has become a cudgel for the ruling class.

In sending observers to France, Romania, and the UK, the Trump administration is doing more than gathering evidence. It is issuing a warning: the age of passive accommodation is over. The US will no longer grant automatic legitimacy to foreign prosecutions that function as political purges.

For the globalist order, this is an existential threat. Their power lies not in persuasion, but in process. They wield courts as swords and bureaucracies as shields. Trump’s crime was to question their divinity. His re-election gives him the power to expose their secular heresies.

But this fight extends beyond Trump. It concerns the survival of political choice itself. If voters cannot choose their leaders without fear that judges will unchoose them, then democracy has already died. What remains is oligarchy, dressed up in robes and gavels.

So yes, the investigations into Le Pen and Connolly are controversial. Good. They should be. Nothing less than the integrity of self-governance is at stake. The ballot box must not become an anteroom to the dock.

Trump’s Next Move Could Be the Ultimate Economic Weapon


one studio 900

As President Donald Trump ramps up his economic battle with China, a powerful new strategy is gaining attention: delisting Chinese companies from American stock exchanges. While some conservatives are wary of pushing too far, this tactic may be the ultimate weapon to rebalance the global playing field—and it’s one the U.S. can wield unilaterally.

The backdrop is already tense. Trump’s tariff crackdown has triggered a tit-for-tat exchange with the Chinese Communist Party, which is notoriously sensitive about losing face internationally. While tariffs dominate headlines, another pressure point is emerging behind the scenes—Chinese companies accessing billions in American capital without playing by the same rules.

According to a recent report from Just the News, many Chinese firms listed on U.S. exchanges routinely dodge compliance with basic securities laws and audit transparency. They benefit from the prestige and liquidity of American financial markets, but avoid the scrutiny that American companies face under U.S. regulations.

Delisting those companies would do more than just send a message. It could seriously disrupt Beijing’s ability to raise capital and fund its sprawling global ambitions.

Legal expert and longtime China analyst Gordon Chang emphasized the uneven playing field created by a 2013 agreement signed during the Obama administration. That memorandum of understanding between U.S. regulators and Chinese authorities gave Chinese firms an unprecedented pass—allowing them to access American investors without subjecting their auditors to onsite inspections.

“This 2013 memorandum was unjustified,” Chang said. “In other words, giving China access to our markets under terms which are more favorable than companies from any other country.”

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, U.S.-listed companies are required to comply with strict auditing standards and oversight by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). But Chinese companies were essentially given a carveout—one that could now be costing American investors both money and national security.

It’s a loophole the Trump administration is finally ready to slam shut.

While tariffs have sparked headlines and retaliation, delisting offers a different kind of leverage. It doesn’t rely on bilateral agreements or global consensus. It simply means enforcing U.S. law and holding foreign firms to the same standards as American ones.

This approach also puts the ball in China’s court. Beijing must decide: will it allow transparency and oversight, or will it sacrifice access to the world’s most lucrative capital markets?

Many Chinese firms are heavily dependent on U.S. markets—not just for funding, but also for credibility. Being listed on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq sends a global signal that a company is legitimate and stable. Removing that endorsement could be a devastating reputational blow, particularly for tech firms and state-owned enterprises.

It’s not just about financial fairness. At a time when China is openly challenging U.S. influence and attempting to spread authoritarian norms across the globe, funding those ambitions through American wallets is indefensible.

Critics will warn about market volatility and diplomatic fallout, but the reality is this: for too long, China has been allowed to game the system. Delisting their companies might finally force some accountability.

President Trump has already signaled he supports tougher restrictions. In a recent statement, he blasted the Obama-era decision to allow China such easy access and hinted that stronger action is coming.

As the trade war escalates and China tries to counter Trump’s tariffs with propaganda and cheap goods, cutting off their financial lifeline could be the boldest move yet.

This is about more than economics. It’s about national strength, investor protection, and refusing to let hostile regimes exploit the American system.

The next front in the U.S.-China standoff may not be at the border—but on Wall Street.

FBI Reports: Teen Killed Parents as Part of Satanic Plot to Assassinate President Trump. Absolutely Frigging Chilling!


FBI Reports: Teen Killed Parents as Part of Satanic Plot to Assassinate President Trump

There’s a growing unease spreading across the heartland, a sense that the values holding our nation together are fraying at the edges. You’ve felt it too, right? That quiet disturbance beneath the surface of daily life, suggesting the foundations we once took for granted might be cracking. It whispers of challenges not just from distant shores, but from within our own communities, festering quietly.

This isn’t mere political disagreement; it feels deeper, more fundamental. It’s that unsettling feeling that bedrock principles – faith, family, respect for authority, the very fabric of Western civilization – are being steadily chipped away by forces that seem to prefer darkness to light, chaos to order. Makes you wonder where this is all headed, doesn’t it? What happens when the guardrails ensuring basic decency start to buckle under the strain?

We see the symptoms pop up, often dismissed by the mainstream as just isolated incidents, nothing to worry about. But thoughtful conservatives understand that sometimes these acts of depravity signal a more profound cultural sickness, a rot spreading unseen until it breaks through in the most shocking ways imaginable. Are we really paying attention or just hoping it goes away?

And then, bam, you get news like this out of Waukesha, Wisconsin, confirming those very fears. In a crime that chills the soul, investigators allege that a 17-year-old high school student, Nikita Casap, brutally murdered his own parents, Tatiana Casap and Donald Mayer, in their home back in February. The details paint a picture of calculated violence against the very people who gave him life and raised him. Just when you think the depths have been plumbed…

But the horror didn’t stop there. Indeed, it intensified dramatically when the FBI revealed the why behind the parricide. Court documents indicate this wasn’t just some tragic, albeit horrific, domestic dispute. Nope. Investigators state the teen killed his parents to gain the “financial means and autonomy” necessary for a far more sinister plot: the assassination of President Donald Trump.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Unmasking the Hate

So, what kind of poison could drive a kid to this? According to the FBI, the teenager was swimming in a venomous cocktail of extremist ideologies. He was allegedly part of a “satanic cult” harboring “strong anti-Judaism anti-Christian and anti-western ideologies.” Further investigation has uncovered links to a neo-Nazi group called the Order of Nine Angles, praise for Adolf Hitler, and deeply antisemitic writings. Get this: Satanists and Nazis, apparently now swapping notes? You couldn’t script this stuff up, but it seems they found common ground in hating everything foundational and good to America and Judeo-Christian values.

The teen’s own manifesto, found by investigators, laid bare the chillingly blunt objective. It wasn’t just about some personal vendetta against President Trump; it was about deliberately destabilizing the nation itself. The goal was explicit: pure anarchy. His own words tell the chilling, if predictable, story:

“As to why, specifically Trump, most believe it’s pretty obvious. By getting rid of the president and perhaps the vice president, that would have guaranteed bringing in chaos.”

Supposedly points for honesty it would appear.

A Deeper Conspiracy?

Now, was this twisted plot conceived entirely in a teenager’s head? The court documents allege Casap aimed not just to kill the President but ultimately sought to overthrow the U.S. government. And naturally, there are whispers of outside contact. Investigators found evidence suggesting he was communicating with individuals in Russia about his plans and even plotting an escape to Ukraine. It certainly raises disturbing questions about who else might be involved, pulling strings or fanning flames.

Make no mistake, this wasn’t just some basement fantasy. Authorities stated the teen had purchased a drone and explosives for a potential attack – taking concrete steps. Casap’s later arrest in Kansas while driving his murdered stepfather’s car containing a handgun, stolen valuables, a pried-open safe, and $14,000 in cash, practically screaming premeditation and flight. He now faces a raft of felony counts, including first-degree intentional homicide, and potential federal charges for the assassination plot. Casap is being held on a $1 million bond. It should be no bond.

This entire horrifying episode serves as a brutal, flashing red light. It’s a reminder of the serious internal threats we face. The ideologies fueling such hatred – whether they call themselves Satanists, Nazis, or wave some other anti-American banner – feast on cultural decay and the rejection of traditional morality. They target not just individuals like President Trump, but the very stability, fabric and soul of our nation.

The fight against this darkness requires more than just hoping law enforcement catches them all. This isn’t just some news story; it demands a reaffirmation from us of the values that actually built this country: faith, strong families, respect for life, and unwavering patriotism. Are we just going to shrug this off or will we remain vigilant, recognize the signs of this rot, and stand firm in defending the principles that stand in stark opposition to the chaos these extremists crave?

Restoration of Second Amendment Rights After They Are Lost


There has long been a provision of federal law that allows Americans to petition the U.S. attorney general (AG) for relief from firearm disabilities on a case-by-case basis, a little-known piece of information due to the function lying dormant since 1991. You see, it’s easier to lose the right to purchase or possess firearms than one might think, and many of the offenses and the conditions surrounding them point to the fact that the prohibited individual does not pose any enhanced risk of physical harm to themselves or the public. So why, then, and how have Americans lost this fundamental access to the restoration of a constitutionally enumerated liberty?

It began in 1991 when a Bolshevik anti-Second Amendment group, the Violence Policy Center, released a report that claimed occasions upon which some citizens who were granted relief would later go on to re-offend. It is important to note that although the AG oversees the provision, the administration process for the petitions had been handed down to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Politicians, in their ever-knee-jerking zeal to strip Americans of their right to bear arms, responded to the report in Congress by passing language in ATF funding bills that prohibited the use of any funds for this purpose.

Now, if you’re thinking that Congress is passing bills contradictory to the law and circumventing both the rights of Americans and the authority of the AG, then you are right on track, but this is nothing new. Look at all the existing gun control laws, both on the federal and state side, that already circumvent Constitutional law and the politicians and activist judges that have ushered them into existence and protected them from legal challenges. It is easy, then, to determine that all branches of the government have long since been in cahoots to some extent and that the tyrannical ship sailed on the American people years ago.

Last week, The Washington Post published an editorial in its opinion section by two law professors who argued that the government should resume funding the rights restoration provision on the grounds that categories of prohibited individuals include people who would not be demonstrably dangerous and whose Second Amendment prohibitions would likely not survive U.S. Supreme Court caselaw scrutiny. The professors also stipulate that the ability to seek relief itself may shield the overly broad categories of prohibition from further Constitutional challenges, which could perhaps lead to the Supreme Court striking down possession prohibitions entirely, two issues that I do not find mutually exclusive. However, I am not sure the High Court, even in its current perceived configuration, is capable of such Constitutional reverence.

The issue of rights restoration recently reemerged as the Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Trump has started reviewing petitions through the Office of the Pardon Attorney, a very clever workaround to the illegal ATF funding rider issued by the Politburo, AKA Congress, which deprives Americans of not only their Second Amendment liberty but also their right to due process. Legal precedent requires the government to carry the burden of proof that an individual poses an enhanced risk of harm to self or others before prohibiting them from purchasing or possessing firearms.

Those of us who live in reality understand that criminals intent on violent crime and murder do not give pause to their actions in order to follow legal protocol and procedure when obtaining firearms. Instead, they see those laws as a means to make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to their objectives and, in that sense, make great partners to the left and any lawmakers who follow the subversive path of the gun control agenda. Leaving Americans unprotected in this manner invites violence, which creates the opportunity for further infringements upon our rights under the guise of protecting our safety, and that cycle is designed to continue until all freedom is lost. Guess what happens next.

When I hear remarks about America being a beacon of freedom, I think to myself, sure, maybe relatively speaking, depending on what state you live in, but not in any general understanding. I’m sure it was at one time, long before I was a twinkle in the eyes of my parents. I wish I could have seen it back then. But individual liberty has not survived the scrutiny of disingenuous agendas and their narratives that claim to know better what Americans need than Americans themselves. The idea that politicians and the government need to strip our freedoms to protect us is insulting and is not even original, as the same tired scheme has been used ad nauseam historically to subjugate populations around the world.

China is Terrified of Trump


China is terrified that Donald Trump could turn it into a Japan-style zombie economy.

According to the Wall Street Journal, China is “Right to worry.”

The reason is Trump’s aggressive tariffs on China — with more to come on April 2nd — are hitting when China’s economy is already reeling from failed central planning.

This includes trillions of overcapacity dumped into state favorites from green energy and EV’s to semiconductors and commercial aircraft.

Overcapacity in China

To illustrate, by 2019 China had five hundred electric vehicle makers.

80% have already gone bust. With a hundred still to go.

This over-capacity is crashing prices in China, which are actually falling again — despite panicked money-printing by China’s central bank.

Meanwhile, private-sector estimates peg China’s economy limping along just over 2% growth — a far cry from double-digits a decade ago.

Ominously, after China’s youth employment soared past 20%, Beijing stopped reporting it.

China’s response to overcapacity has been dumping abroad, which is why you can get four dollar shirts on Temu.

That’s pissing off trade partners including the EU.

But that’s barely making a dent, with prices still falling. Which puts tens of thousands more factories at risk.

That could mean millions more jobs lost.

Last year China had nearly a thousand “dissent events” — including riots.

Millions of unemployed factory workers would be gasoline to the fire.

Trump’s Tariffs

Donald Trump is now feeding China’s house of cards into the wood chipper.

A few weeks ago he hiked tariffs to between 17 and a half to 35 percent, with more to come on April second, when Trump goes nuclear with reciprocal tariffs.

Even China perma-bull JP Morgan admitted “we felt tariffs were a negotiating tactic rather than a structural change. We appear to be wrong.”

I’ve mentioned in previous articles that Trump’s dream of bringing production back to America is actually possible if business taxes and red tape are tamed.

DOGE is aiming directly at both. And Trump keeps flirting with repealing the entire income tax.

Given America’s huge economy — we’re one-quarter of the entire global economy — if you nestle that under a big beautiful tariff umbrella and cut costs and red tape you get a flood of Chinese companies wanting to Make it in America.

Beijing will be bribing them to stay.

China’s Abuse of Foreign Firms

It’s not just Trump.

Doing business in China has always been like dating a stripper — good-looking but there’s an awful lot of drama.

Beijing forces you to train your competitors and share your trade secrets — so-called forced technology transfer.

Its regulations change depending who you know. With foreigners at the back of the line.

Occasionally it arrests your managers as hostages if it’s upset with your country.

Thanks to all this, foreign investment into China has collapsed 96% since Xi Jinping took office, actually turning negative — more leaving than coming — with a record $168 billion outflow last year.

There’s even talk that China could be turning into a Japan-style zombie economy thanks to government allocation of capital. Bond markets say it already has.

What’s Next

China’s President Xi appears incapable of handling the challenge. He’s the most anti-business Chinese leader since Mao — with a decade of low growth to show for it.

Worse, his instinctive combativeness is going to create fireworks with Donald Trump, who’s currently luring China’s most important ally, Russia, out of its orbit.

Sadly for the Chinese people, Xi’s greatest achievement is the police state he built. So, at age 71, there’s no cavalry coming.

Who are the Judges ruling against Trump’s orders?


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

McConnell was a former treasurer of the Rhode Island Democratic Committee and chaired the campaign of Providence Mayor David Cicilline, according to the Providence Journal. Cicilline was later elected to the U.S. House. 

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.

‘Deranged Jack Smith’ Executive Order Takes Down And Shakes Up His Friends


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 Journal article–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 Times reported 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.

A Busy First Week At The Trump DOJ


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.

Justice Restored: Trump’s Mission To Reclaim The DOJ


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.

Watch as Always Gracious Melania Cleverly Exposes the Obamas as the Infinitely Petty Frauds They Truly Are


Melania Trump kisses then-President-elect Donald Trump as he arrives for the inauguration ceremony in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda in Washington, D.C., on Monday.

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.

Delusional Attempt to Impeach Trump Already Underway


For those of you pining for the sturm und drang of Donald Trump’s first term, I’m the bearer of good news: The first attempt to impeach the newly minted president is already underway.

Sure, as political pseudoevents go, it’s about as anticlimactic, low profile, and ill-conceived as a Limp Bizkit reunion album. But #TheResistance 2.0 has to begin somewhere, and it’s apparently beginning with leftist interest group Free Speech For People.

The group — whose website looks like it dates from the era where Daily Kos’ site interface looked positively cutting edge — bills itself as a “non-partisan campaign, but is focused on a bevy of leftist issues, including stopping “voter suppression” (read: preventing anti-voter fraud initiatives), eliminating dark money in politics (unless it comes from George Soros, one assumes), and tackling “corporate abuse of power.”

It’s perhaps best known for its opposition to the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled independent campaign expenditures counted as free speech. (Floyd Brown, founder of The Western Journal, was also the founder of Citizens United, the plaintiff in that case.)

But now, the group has a more important mission. Free Speech For People — which apparently knows about as much about what “high crimes and misdemeanors” are as it does about using definite articles to make their organization’s name sound less awkward — began a campaign to impeach Trump on the day he was inaugurated.

The group’s petition is “calling on the U.S. Congress to initiate an immediate impeachment investigation into Donald Trump’s violations of the Emoluments Clauses and into his unlawful, corrupt campaign practices.”

“Trump’s return to the White House poses an unprecedented threat to our democracy,” says John Bonifaz, organization president.

“During his campaign and in the months before his inauguration, Donald Trump engaged in unlawful, unconstitutional conduct and threatened more. He has once more positioned himself to abuse the office for personal profit and power in violation of clear constitutional commands and at the expense of our democratic institutions, constitutional precedent, and the safety of our country’s most vulnerable.”

The petition refers to two sections of the U.S. Constitution Free Speech For People believes Trump has violated: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8; and Article II, Section 1, Clause 7.

The first clause they believe is impeachment-worthy: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

The second: “The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

By the way, in case you’ve forgotten from the last go-around, “emolument” means “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.”

Sorry to insult the intelligence of most of our readership but I’d wager there’s probably some “White Dudes for Harris” straggler reading this in the dark as he munches his Beyond Meat chicken tendies in his faded pink, unwashed knit p**** cap, thinking to himself: “Hot diggity! So you’re saying there’s still a chance! But, uh, what’s an ’emmermonumment’?”

This, by the way, is the same bovine effluence the left tried to make stick the last time before James Coney, Robert Muller, and Alexander Vindman gave them shinier objects to gaze upon — and, one assumes, it’ll have even shorter legs this time.

“Trump has refused to sell his ownership stake in companies through which he is assured to receive substantial payments from foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause,” the group’s statement said.

“At least five foreign governments pay a combined $2 million per month in fees for their units in Trump World Tower; and because all five of these foreign governments are currently paying Trump these monthly fees, Trump is in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause from the moment he took the oath of office.”

If you want a good laugh, try doing a Google search for “Free Speech For People Hunter Biden Burisma” or “Free Speech For People Hunter Biden CEFC.” See how many hissy fits the organization had about those emolument-looking arrangements when they happened. For gambling types, I’m setting the over-under on relevant search results at 0. Anyone who picked the over can just give me your money now.

And, by the way, there’s a huge difference between the Trump family and the Biden family. Trump came to the presidency after a career in the private sector — and a successful one at that. Of course he had assets — especially real estate — and of course the wealthy were drawn to the Trump name before and after he became president. That’s not an emolument, that’s business as usual.

Joe Biden, meanwhile, has spent four of the last 52 years in the private sector — and he spent it writing a book which he improperly retained classified documents to complete. Hunter, meanwhile, mysteriously began getting well-remunerated roles with companies in countries like Ukraine and China in fields which he had no experience in, and while he was in the throes of a drug, alcohol, and sex addiction that would make Hunter S. Thompson and Charlie Sheen blush. His father claims that he had no knowledge of or discussions about his son’s overseas dealings, which is why he took numerous photos with his son’s foreign business contacts, a trove of which were released as Uncle Joe was exiting the White House:

Oh, and it’s not just the emoluments clauses! “The campaign lists additional impeachable offenses committed during Trump’s 2024 election campaign and leading up to the inauguration, including: threatening physical violence, including murder, against political opponents, journalists, and protestors; using racist, xenophobic rhetoric that has endangered immigrant communities; and violating campaign finance laws by offering benefits in exchange for campaign contributions,” the release reads.

Unlike their fulmination over alleged violations of the emoluments clauses, however, there’s absolutely no supporting evidence of this given — and there’s also no impeachable offense in there once you reduce the febrile rhetoric to what it is, which is positions Trump and his supporters have taken that they disagree with.

If this is what they think will produce the third impeachment of Trump, it’s practically adorable. I doubt that Free Speech For People will be the last organization advocating for this kind of futile opposition to The Donald’s second term. It’ll be hard to top them for sheer unintentional humor value, however.

Morons just never, ever learn. Einstein’s definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Congressional Obstruction And The Case For Adjournment


Moments of extraordinary peril have demanded extraordinary action. Today, as the nation teeters on the precipice of economic turmoil and national insecurity, President Trump finds himself facing an adversary not foreign but domestic: a Congress shackled by obstructionism. The Democrats’ calculated stonewalling of key cabinet nominations, including CIA nominee John Ratcliffe and DOJ nominee Pam Bondi, has left federal agencies rudderless, vulnerable and infiltrated by what can only be described as the Deep State. Trump’s power to adjourn Congress—a constitutional provision buried in the seldom-visited corridors of Article II, Section 3—may be the nation’s best hope for restoring order and ensuring competent leadership at the helm of our government.

The Framers of the Constitution, wise to the capricious nature of politics, granted the president the power to adjourn Congress “in extraordinary occasions” when the House and Senate fail to agree on adjournment. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 70, extolled the virtues of a decisive executive, arguing that energy in the executive is “a leading character in the definition of good government.” While this power has never been exercised in the nation’s history, its inclusion underscores the Framers’ recognition that paralysis within the legislative branch can imperil the republic.

Indeed, Justice Joseph Story’s commentaries on the Constitution describe the adjournment clause as a safeguard against legislative dysfunction. The current congressional deadlock, with Democrats weaponizing procedure to undermine executive appointments, exemplifies the very “extraordinary occasions” that justify invoking this power.

The stakes could not be higher. With the CIA and DOJ operating under interim leadership, their ability to counteract threats—both foreign and domestic—is severely hampered. Ratcliffe’s delay ensures that the CIA remains a playground for DEI zealots and entrenched bureaucrats. Similarly, without Pam Bondi’s confirmation, the DOJ continues to sidestep Trump’s mandate to root out ideological rot. Recent revelations of agencies rebranding DEI positions to evade detection highlight the Deep State’s subversive ingenuity—a direct challenge to Trump’s executive orders banning such programs. The message is clear: without Trump appointees in key positions, federal agencies will remain unaccountable fortresses of woke orthodoxy.

Historically, periods of executive action have often followed legislative gridlock in times of crisis. Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s aggressive New Deal measures illustrate that decisive action, while controversial, is sometimes necessary to preserve the nation’s integrity. The present crisis, though less visible, is no less existential. National security cannot afford to be a casualty of political gamesmanship.

The economic ramifications of congressional obstruction extend beyond the Beltway. With inflation persisting, global markets jittery and outgoing Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warning that the government will run out of money this week, the United States faces a dire emergency. Yellen’s suggestion for the incoming treasury secretary to implement extraordinary measures underscores the urgency. Without Trump’s treasury secretary nominee, Scott Bessent, at the helm, who is running the show—a second-string quarterback? Treasury, commerce and energy, among others, require Trump-aligned leadership to implement policies that restore fiscal discipline and energy independence, ensuring America’s financial stability during this critical moment.

Consider the contrast: during the Reagan administration, swift executive appointments enabled the rapid implementation of supply-side economics, catalyzing a historic economic boom. Conversely, today’s delays have left markets uncertain and businesses hesitant, awaiting clarity from an administration hamstrung by partisan brinkmanship. By adjourning Congress and making recess appointments, Trump can bypass the stalemate and restore confidence in America’s economic stewardship.

Critics may balk at the unprecedented nature of adjourning Congress, invoking fears of executive overreach. Yet such criticisms ignore the reality that precedent is not destiny. When Ronald Reagan fired air traffic controllers during the PATCO strike, he faced similar accusations of authoritarianism. History, however, vindicated him as a leader who prioritized national interest over fleeting norms.

Furthermore, the Constitution’s silence on the length of adjournment grants Trump significant discretion. As the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning clarified, a recess of 10 days is sufficient to activate the Recess Appointments Clause. By adjourning Congress over a weekend, Trump can legally appoint his cabinet, ensuring that Senate deliberations proceed without jeopardizing national security or economic stability.

The specter of the Deep State looms large. Recent investigative reports reveal an entrenched bureaucracy—particularly within intelligence and law enforcement—dedicated to undermining Trump’s agenda. These unelected officials have exploited vacancies to shield their machinations, from rebranding DEI departments to slow-walking compliance with executive orders. By filling these vacancies, Trump can dismantle this unelected cabal and restore accountability to the executive branch.

How it Would Work

The president could trigger the adjournment clause with the help of either the House or Senate through a specific series of events. First, one chamber, say the Senate, led by Majority Leader John Thune, would need to pass a resolution to adjourn for a period of more than three days. This could be done with a simple majority vote, as a motion to adjourn cannot be filibustered according to Senate Rule XXII(1). Next, the House, under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson, would need to either actively reject the Senate’s adjournment resolution or fail to act on it before the proposed adjournment date. Given the Republican majority, the Senate could lose up to three votes, while the House could lose up to five votes, and still pass the resolution. This lack of agreement between the chambers would then allow the president to step in and formally adjourn Congress to a time of his choosing. This scenario highlights how the president could use the adjournment clause, with the cooperation of one chamber of Congress, to potentially create a recess and make recess appointments.

The time for half-measures has passed. In this moment of crisis, Trump must wield the constitutional tools at his disposal to adjourn Congress and make recess appointments. The stakes—national security, economic stability and the integrity of federal agencies—are too high to allow congressional obstruction to persist. Just as Lincoln’s bold actions preserved the Union, Trump’s decisive use of the Adjournment Clause can ensure that the republic remains secure, prosperous and true to its constitutional principles. To paraphrase Reagan, history will remember not the critics who howled but the leader who acted.