Tag: donald trump

The ABA Wants The White House’s Receipts On The Biglaw Executive Orders

In 2025, Steve Bannon said the quiet part out loud, on his own podcast, when it came to the Trump administration’s goals when issuing (unconstitutional) executive orders aimed at Biglaw firms. Bannon said of the targeted firms, “What we are trying to do is put you out of business and bankrupt you.” Now the ABA wants to know how much of that he was really involved with.

In a Tuesday filing in American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, the ABA asked U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to force the White House to hand over internal communications, including those involving Bannon and Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s personal senior counsel. According to reporting, Epshteyn connected two firms that struck deals with the administration, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, with the Commerce Department on matters related to U.S. trade negotiations.

The ABA sued the administration back in June 2025, arguing that the executive orders, plus the wave of “deals” that spooked firms into capitulating before an order ever came for them, amounted to a coordinated policy, not isolated grievances against a handful of firms. As noted when the suit was first filed, the ABA had reason to worry about standing before it ever got to the merits, given this particular Supreme Court’s track record on associational standing.

Those worries didn’t pan out, at least not yet. In April, Judge Ali rejected the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, finding the ABA had plausibly alleged a real threat of retaliation and a documented chilling effect on its members, including instances of firms declining pro bono work seen as adverse to the administration. That ruling is what put the case into the discovery fight now playing out over Bannon, Epshteyn, and the rest of the internal White House record.

The underlying grievance predates the ABA suit by months, of course. Four firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — fought their individual executive orders in court and won, repeatedly, sweeping the district court level on First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment grounds. Nine other firms didn’t fight, cutting deals worth roughly $940 million in pro bono commitments to Trump-approved causes instead. And DOJ’s posture toward the winning firms has been anything but consistent: in March, the department dropped its appeals of those district court losses, only to reverse course about two weeks later and go back to defending the orders, this time citing the nine capitulating firms as proof the policy worked exactly as designed.

The DOJ, as you’d expect, does not want to produce any of this. The government has argued the requests raise separation-of-powers concerns and are overbroad, and last week, it asked a federal court in New York to block the ABA from deposing Epshteyn altogether. Whether that gambit works is now Judge Ali’s problem; DOJ’s response to the ABA’s Tuesday brief is due July 17.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Targets Medicare Fraud After 7,100% Surge In Transplant Claims

The Trump administration says it has uncovered a dramatic increase in Medicare claims for tissue and organ transplants, resulting in a broad crackdown on suspected fraud that officials say has already blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable payments.

Administration officials said Medicare claims for tissue and organ transplants, known as allografts, climbed from $200 million in 2019 to $14.4 billion in 2025—a 7,100 percent increase.

The surge led the White House Anti-Fraud Task Force, headed by Vice President JD Vance, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to intensify their review of claims. Since March, the agency has denied 96 percent of allograft claims identified during the review.

CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said the agency identified 4,200 potentially fraudulent allograft claims totaling $224 million through May.

“That’s a lot of money,” Oz said during a Wednesday news conference in Milwaukee.

“And that bankrupts not just hospital systems and physician groups, but it causes major problems across the entire landscape.”

The agency also announced enforcement actions involving Durable Medical Equipment (DME) including wheelchairs, walkers, hospital beds and other medical equipment.

According to CMS, payments have been suspended to 102 suppliers, while billing privileges have been revoked for another 725 suppliers. The agency said those suppliers accounted for 8.6 percent of all Medicare-funded DME in 2025.

CMS officials reported they identified suspected fraud involving claims for equipment that was not medically necessary or ordered, equipment that was more expensive than prescribed, and equipment that was never delivered.

“In just six months, the task force has effectively wiped out Durable Medical Equipment fraud in America,” a spokesperson for Vance’s office said.

“After the vice president and Dr. Oz announced a moratorium on new DME companies, paired with aggressive enforcement actions by DOJ and HHS, this kind of fraud has effectively ended.”

Oz said the administration’s efforts have already prevented significant losses.

“Thanks to the whole-of-government approach spearheaded by the White House Anti-Fraud Task Force, we stopped nearly $220 million in fraudulent skin substitute claims and suspended or revoked billing privileges for over 800 DME suppliers,” Oz told Fox News Digital. “We are keeping our promise to the American people: we will root out corruption, protect vulnerable patients, and hold every bad actor accountable.”

Oz also warned those engaged in health care fraud that the administration intends to continue its enforcement campaign.

“To anyone out there, and I’m talking to you if you’re a fraudster, for anyone out there who thinks they can get away by stealing from the American people, especially American patients, I’ve got a bit of advice for you: Do not walk away from this press conference. Don’t walk away from us. You start running because the vice president and this task force are coming after you,” Oz said.

Keep reading

Trump Fires Three Remaining Members of the Election Assistance Commission Ahead of Midterms

President Trump on Thursday fired the three remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Two Democrat commissioners Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland were fired over email.

The lone Republican commissioner, Christy McCormick, resigned.

The firings left the independent commission with no commissioners.

The firings come after the Supreme Court ruled that a US president has the authority to fire heads of independent agencies in the executive branch.

Reuters reported:

U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday terminated the members of the Election Assistance Commission, the independent, federal ​commission that assists election administration officials nationwide, according to ‌one person familiar with the decision and two other people briefed on the terminations.

The remaining three commissioners of the four-member bipartisan commission were forced out of the commission on Thursday in different ways. The ‌one ​Republican appointee resigned and the other two ⁠Democratic appointees were notified ⁠of their termination via an email by the White House Presidential Personnel Office.

“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position ​as Commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission is terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service,” the email, seen ⁠by Reuters, said.

The White House did ⁠not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The ​Election Assistance Commission serves as a “national clearinghouse of information on ​election administration,” accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting systems, ‌and maintains the national mail voter registration form developed by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, according to the commission’s website.

Keep reading

Top Official in Marxist NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Administration Secretly Scheduled Meeting with Iran’s UN Ambassador – Trump State Department Forced to Shut It Down

A senior official in Communist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration tried to hold an official meeting with the Iranian regime’s ambassador to the United Nations.

Commissioner Ana María Archila, head of the Mayor’s Office for International Affairs, had scheduled the meeting for July 7 at 11 a.m. at 2 United Nations Plaza with Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran’s permanent representative to the UN.

Two other senior officials from the office were also set to attend, according to calendar invitation screenshots reviewed by City Journal and confirmed by multiple sources, including a State Department official.

The meeting was called off only after the U.S. State Department, which had not been informed in advance, stepped in and met with the Mamdani administration to “clarify acceptable conduct,” according to City Journal.

Archila reportedly did not even tell Mayor Mamdani she had arranged the sit-down. She was later reprimanded and ordered to cancel it.

A spokesperson for the Mayor’s Office for International Affairs issued the predictable damage-control statement: “This meeting did not and will not take place.”

Keep reading

Newsom Lashes Out at Trump When asked About Federal Investigation Into Wife Jennifer Newsom

California Governor Gavin Newsom lashed out at President Trump and the Trump DOJ when asked about the federal investigation into his wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

Last month, Newsom fumed as he announced the corruption probe had expanded, and he and his wife are now under investigation.

Newsom said federal agents have contacted people and organizations close to him and his wife, Jennifer Newsom.

People close to the Newsoms have been subpoenaed for records, according to the governor.

According to Semafor, there are several investigations related to Newsom and they are focused on Jennifer Newsom’s taxes (+ his chief of staff).

Contrary to Newsom’s claims, the investigations did not originate from main DOJ in DC, but are out of Sacramento and involve whistleblowers, Semafor reported.

The investigation began under the Biden Regime, but Newsom lashed out at President Trump during a question and answer session on Thursday.

Keep reading

Eight Contradictions Behind NATO’s Summit of ‘Love’

“I just want to say there was tremendous love in that room,” President Trump declared as he wrapped up the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara.

But anyone looking beyond the carefully choreographed photo-ops saw an alliance beset by public feuds, competing visions of security, and widening political divisions.

Here are eight contradictions that defined the Ankara summit—and raise fundamental questions about NATO’s future.

1. Military Spending vs. Real Security

NATO leaders had already agreed at the previous summit to move toward spending 5 percent of GDP on military-related expenditures, but Ankara exposed how divisive that commitment remains. Trump used the meeting to chastise allies for failing to meet even the old 2 percent benchmark, arguing that most allies were not paying what they should. Spain became the main target because it refused to commit to the full 5 percent goal, prompting Trump to call it “a terrible partner in NATO” and threaten trade retaliation.

The timing made the debate especially striking. As leaders met to discuss pouring hundreds of billions more into weapons and armies, Europe was enduring one of the most severe heatwaves in its recorded history, with deadly temperatures, wildfires, strained electricity grids, and mounting pressure on public health systems. The contrast raised an unavoidable question: at a time when climate change is already killing people and overwhelming governments, why is the overriding political priority dramatically expanding military budgets instead of investing in the threats people are facing today?

2. NATO Countries Reluctant to Support Trump on Iran

The recent U.S.-Israeli war on Iran cast a long shadow over the summit. While most European leaders continued calling for diplomacy and de-escalation, the summit itself began with renewed U.S. bombing of Iranian targets after attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. During the meeting, Trump declared the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding “over,” dismissed further negotiations as “a waste of time,” and referred to Iran’s leaders as “scum.”

Trump also complained that European allies had failed to support Washington’s military campaign, saying, “We are there for them, but they are not there for us.” Spain was among the strongest critics of the war, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez refused U.S. requests to allow American bases in Spain to be used for offensive operations against Iran. Before the summit, Trump publicly feuded with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni after she likewise refused to allow Italian bases to be used for attacks on Iran. Germany and France also declined to participate militarily.

The contradiction was unmistakable: NATO presents itself as a defensive alliance, yet its most powerful member expected allies to support an offensive war against a country thousands of miles from the North Atlantic that had not attacked a single NATO member.

3. Europe Pushes Support for Ukraine as the United States Pulls Back

Missing from NATO’s final declaration was its previous pledge that Ukraine would eventually become a member of the alliance—a notable concession to Trump’s opposition. Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership, first strongly backed by President George W. Bush at the alliance’s 2008 Bucharest summit, has long been one of Russia’s central stated objections and was repeatedly cited by Putin as a justification for the 2022 invasion. Its omission from the declaration reflects a significant shift in NATO’s position.

The declaration pledged roughly $82 billion in military assistance for Ukraine in both 2026 and 2027, but unlike in previous years, the overwhelming share will come from European allies and Canada rather than the United States. After Washington poured well over $100 billion into Ukraine’s war effort, the United States is now stepping back. That reflects a growing sentiment among Trump supporters that the U.S. should stop financing what they see as another endless foreign war. Many European governments, however, continue to see Russia as a direct threat and remain committed to arming Ukraine rather than pushing for a diplomatic solution.

Keep reading

Dissent Is Not Disloyalty: The Right and Duty to Criticize the Government

“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”—Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting in Colten v. Kentucky (1972)

President Trump has no problem criticizing, condemning, insulting, demonizing and threatening those who refuse to fall in line.

He has branded political opponents “communists,” denounced critics as anti-American, lashed out at NATO allies, threatened to cut off trade with Spain, and referred to Iran’s leaders as “scum” amid the ongoing war.

In Trump’s America, the president is free to call other nations bad actors, label his opponents dangerous, and treat disagreement as betrayal.

But dare to criticize Trump, his administration, ICE, the police state, the war machine, the surveillance state, or the government’s steady assault on the Constitution, and you may find yourself treated as the threat.

This is the hypocrisy of the moment: those in power claim an unlimited right to criticize everyone else, while increasingly denying the people the right to criticize them.

Criticize the government, question the police state, object to ICE raids, oppose war, challenge corruption, reject propaganda, refuse to salute the party line, or insist that public officials obey the Constitution, and you may find yourself accused of being anti-American, extremist, subversive, ungrateful, communist, terrorist-adjacent or worse.

This is how free speech dies: not all at once, but by redefining dissent as disloyalty.

Yet the First Amendment was not written to mandate flattery and applause for those in power. It was written to safeguard the right of the people to criticize, condemn, expose, challenge and resist government abuses without fear of being investigated, surveilled, threatened, prosecuted or treated like enemies of the state.

The American Revolution itself began as an act of criticism.

The Declaration of Independence was a bill of complaints against a government that had abused its power, violated the rights of the people, used the military to intimidate civilians, obstructed justice, imposed unjust burdens, and treated resistance as rebellion.

By today’s standards, the Founders would likely be labeled extremists, agitators, radicals, anti-government dissidents and threats to national security.

What was once rebellion against tyranny is now being recast as a warning sign of extremism.

Keep reading

Trump DOJ to Send Federal Election Monitors to 15 Jurisdictions in Six States for 2026 Primaries

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon announced Tuesday that the Department of Justice will deploy election monitors to 15 jurisdictions across Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Virginia ahead of the upcoming primaries.

The monitors are tasked with ensuring compliance with federal voting laws, preventing fraud, protecting eligible voters’ rights, and documenting any irregularities in areas long plagued by election integrity concerns.

Dhillon stated in a video posted to X:

In 2026, in this upcoming primary season, the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, as it has done for decades, is this year sending election monitors into 15 different jurisdictions in six states. And those states are Arizona, Michigan, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

And we’re sending the monitors into cities and counties where there may have been some problems in the recent elections. And so this is something that DOJ does routinely.

So, for example, in 2022, in the primary season, there were nine jurisdictions in which the prior administration sent election monitors during the primaries. In 2024, similarly, there were, in that election, 27 different jurisdictions monitored by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.

So this year, we’re kind of in the middle of that with our 15. And what we hope to do here is increase voter confidence, make sure there are no language barriers or barriers to voting for Americans with disabilities, or, you know, sort of failure to make sure that the polling places are open correctly for the amount of time necessary, and that everyone has appropriate access to vote who should be allowed to vote.

So this is an important goal that increases voter confidence.

Exercise of our oversight duty and our enforcement duty to enforce the Help America Vote Act, the National Voter Registration Act, the Voting Rights Act, a very important statute, and other civil rights statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

So I’m proud to be helping organize this effort and send those monitors to help increase all citizens’ confidence in the outcome of our elections.

Keep reading

Tax-Payer Funded NPR Publishes Article on How to Avoid Trump’s Image on Passport

The taxpayer-funded NPR published an article Wednesday explaining how passport applicants can avoid receiving a commemorative passport featuring President Donald Trump’s image.

The special passport, released to mark America’s 250th anniversary, became available Monday at the Washington Passport Agency. It can only be obtained in person and by appointment.

Among those seeking the new design was Alabama resident John Hall, who told NPR he drove to Washington in his “MAGA red” Hyundai hoping to get one because he is a supporter of Trump and wanted the commemorative passport. He was unable to secure an appointment before returning home and said he plans to come back for one of the agency’s upcoming passport events.

Not everyone shared that reaction. Kim Zaninovich of Richmond, Virginia, told NPR she was unhappy after receiving a passport featuring Trump’s image, saying she did not realize there was another option. She described the illustration as showing an “angry look” and said she would have preferred a standard version.

According to NPR, applicants who do not want the commemorative edition can avoid it by requesting a passport with extra pages. NPR added that the State Department said the anniversary design is only offered in the standard 28-page passport book, meaning the larger version does not include Trump’s image.

Despite NPR’s claim that the commemorative passport is only available in the standard 28-page book, the State Department says the anniversary passport is issued only in the standard 26-page passport book, while applicants who request the 50-page version receive the existing design instead.

Keep reading

President Trump Seeks Immediate REHEARING of Birthright Citizenship Case at Supreme Court After Scam Billboards Pop Up Along the Border Advertising “Deliveries Starting at $4000”

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday he is immediately demanding a rehearing of the birthright citizenship case at the United States Supreme Court after discovering that scam billboards and signs have exploded along the Southern Border, in Mexico, and across the country, openly advertising “BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP” with “Deliveries starting at $4000.”

The president blasted the growing scheme that exploits America’s birthright citizenship laws, arguing that the Court’s recent decision has created an incentive for criminal enterprises to profit by marketing U.S. citizenship to foreign nationals.

In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote:

“Signs and Billboards are being put up all over our Southern Border, and Mexico, advertising BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, with “Deliveries starting at $4000.”

Likewise, similar signs going up all over our Country. Billions of Dollars will be illegally made by this SCAM, with Citizenship going to anyone willing to pay.

It will be, by far, the number one way of becoming a citizen, and then the entire family will be allowed to follow. Not sustainable.

NOBODY SAW THIS COMING!!! AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong.

I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision.”

Keep reading