Tag: emergency powers

Trump Has a Habit of Asserting Broad, Unreviewable Authority

In separate attacks this month, the U.S. military blew up two speedboats in the Caribbean Sea, killing 14 alleged drug smugglers. Although those men could have been intercepted and arrested, President Donald Trump said he decided summary execution was appropriate as a deterrent to drug trafficking.

To justify this unprecedented use of the U.S. military to kill criminal suspects, Trump invoked his “constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive” to protect “national security and foreign policy interests.” That assertion of sweeping presidential power fits an alarming pattern that is also apparent in Trump’s tariffs, his attempt to summarily deport suspected gang members as “alien enemies,” and his planned use of National Guard troops to fight crime in cities across the country.

Although Trump described the boat attacks as acts of “self-defense,” he did not claim the people whose deaths he ordered were engaged in literal attacks on the United States. His framing instead relied on the dubious proposition that drug smuggling is tantamount to violent aggression.

While that assumption is consistent with Trump’s often expressed desire to kill drug dealers, it is not consistent with the way drug laws are ordinarily enforced. In the absence of violent resistance, a police officer who decided to shoot a drug suspect dead rather than take him into custody would be guilty of murder.

That seems like an accurate description of the attacks that Trump ordered. Yet he maintains that his constitutional license to kill, which apparently extends to civilians he views as threats to U.S. “national security and foreign policy interests,” transforms murder into self-defense.

Trump has asserted similarly broad authority to impose stiff, ever-changing tariffs on goods imported from scores of countries. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected that audacious power grab, saying it was inconsistent with the 1977 statute on which Trump relied.

The Federal Circuit said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not mention import taxes at all and had never before been used to impose them, does not give the president “unlimited authority” to “revise the tariff schedule” approved by Congress. The appeals court added that “the Government’s understanding of the scope of authority granted by IEEPA would render it an unconstitutional delegation.”

Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua has also run into legal trouble. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded that Trump had erroneously relied on a nonexistent “invasion or predatory incursion” to justify his use of that 1798 statute.

Trump argued that the courts had no business deciding whether he had complied with the law. “The president’s determination that the factual prerequisites of the AEA have been met is not subject to judicial review,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told the 5th Circuit.

Trump took a similar position in the tariff case. As an opposing lawyer noted, it amounted to the claim that “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants, so long as he declares an emergency.”

Keep reading

Covid mRNA Vaccines Are Unregulated Military Countermeasures

mRNA Vaccines DID NOT UNDERGO a legally regulated drug approval or manufacturing process

It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process. (2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academies publication, p. 28)

All mRNA products on the market and in development today became available as a result of the declared Covid pandemic, through legal pathways intended for CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) emergencies – in other words, war or terror incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

These WMD-related laws include Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and blanket legal indemnity granted through the PREP Act.

The manufacturing agreements for the Covid mRNA vaccines were military Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) signed by the Pentagon. This type of “other than contract” agreement is intended to supply the military with cutting-edge technology while bypassing pesky regulations and red tape. It is not intended for civilian use.

Keep reading

FDA Revokes Emergency Authorization For COVID-19 Vaccines

The Department of Health and Human Services under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revoked emergency authorization for COVID-19 vaccines.

“The emergency use authorizations for Covid vaccines, once used to justify broad mandates on the general public during the Biden administration, are now rescinded,” Kennedy posted to X on Wednesday.

The news comes as the FDA, which is part of HHS, announced the approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for older adults and children as young as 5-years-old who have at least one condition that puts them at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, Pfizer said in a Wednesday statement.  

Regulators have issued similar approvals for COVID-19 jabs from Novavax and Moderna. 

HHS revoking emergency approval means that FDA clearance is no longer in place for some 240 million Americans, however “These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors,” Kennedy sai. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, per federal law, the FDA approves products it determines are “safe, pure, and potent.” Emergency authorizations, in contrast, can only be offered under certain circumstances, such as during a public health emergency, and are for products that officials believe “may be effective” in treating or preventing a life-threatening disease or condition.

Updated Approvals

Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA’s commissioner, and Dr. Vinay Prasad, its top vaccine official at the time, signaled the change in May, when they said that the FDA would stop approving COVID-19 vaccines for many Americans absent clinical trial data.

“The FDA can only approve products if it concludes, based on scientific evidence, that the benefit-to-harm balance is favorable. And we simply need more data to have that confidence for younger individuals at low-risk of severe disease,” Prasad said at the time.

In the United States, regulators in recent years have been authorizing updated COVID-19 vaccines annually in a bid to counter waning effectiveness and better match circulating variants. The model is based on the historical approach to influenza vaccines.

Regulators in 2024 cleared updated shots from Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax without human data, citing animal tests and data from trials for previous versions.

Keep reading

The Case of the Damning FDA Memos

On July 21, 2025, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) announced that it had secured the release of over 600,000 pages of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) data used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to authorize and approve Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2), following a successful lawsuit, culminating in a late 2024 court ruling.

These documents, now publicly available on ICAN’s website, are part of a broader release of over 1.6 million pages, including data from the vaccine’s licensure in August 2021 and the earlier EUA in December 2020.

This report builds on my prior investigative work analyzing thousands of FDA documents released following the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) lawsuit, which focused on the biological product file submitted by Pfizer for the full approval of its COVID-19 vaccine in August 2021.

I was one of the initial researchers to uncover and analyse the damning data hidden within Pfizer’s Pregnancy & Lactation Cumulative Review, Interim-Narrative-Sensitive document (3000+ pages), and Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports document, among others.

Both ICAN and PHMPT’s lawsuits sought to make public the FDA’s data on the Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 shot, asserting that transparency is critical for public trust and independent analysis, given the global administration of billions of doses of this experimental gene-based product that was mandated in several countries.

My preliminary review of ICAN’s EUA data reveals several irregularities, outlined below with references to key documents and downloadable sources. This report focuses on four critical issues: manufacturing oversight gaps, missing Bell’s palsy data, clinical trial site deficiencies, and the exclusion of unconfirmed COVID-19 cases.

Keep reading

Court Upholds Nearly $1 Million Fine Against Restaurant That Ignored Pandemic Indoor Dining Ban

A Washington state restaurant that ignored a 2020 state COVID-19 pandemic order must pay a fine of $936,000 – $18,000 per day, for each day it remained in operation while the state’s emergency order banning indoor dining was in place, an appeals court has ruled.

The ban, imposed in late 2020 by Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), went into effect following a jump in cases and hospitalizations (unaudited!). In response, the owners of Stuffy’s II restaurant, Bud and Glenda Duling, ignored the order – resulting in the financial punishment. 

The fine was levied by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries – which the Dulings say they cannot pay. Meanwhile, the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals did not have their back, refusing to weigh in after saying they don’t have the authority to deal with constitutional matters. A superior court judge upheld the decision.

Despite providing tax returns showing that it operated at a loss in 2020 and received a PPP loan, the court ruled that the Dulings have not provided evidence that their company cannot pay the fines.

“Duling has not demonstrated that it is unable to pay the fine or that the fine is excessive,” Judge Rebecca Glasgow wrote for the unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the State of Washington judges that considered the case. “There is nothing in the record about what savings or assets Duling had,” Glasow continued, adding “Duling had ample opportunities to provide additional documentation and deposition testimony to support its contention that it was unable to pay the fine, and it did not do so.”

Keep reading

California’s Fraudulent “Disaster Recovery” Is A Land Grab

Remember Gavin Newsom’s first visit to the sites of devastating fires last January in Los Angeles, when he vowed to streamline California’s paralytic regulations so people could quickly rebuild their homes?

In that interview, while undulating his shoulders in a weird shimmy that will undoubtedly come back to haunt him as he ramps up his presidential campaigning, Newsom also promised to “prevent opportunistic investors from exploiting vulnerable residents by offering below-market prices.”

It’s hard to say which promise has been more thoroughly violated. As celebrity author Adam Carolla posted on 7/14, there is virtually no work going on along the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, where hundreds of homes burned down to the sand.

This is typical.

The Palisades Fire, with a burn area that included Malibu, destroyed over 6,000 homes. So far, 161 permits have been issued by the City of Los Angeles. The community of Altadena, which was consumed by the Eaton Fire, lost over 9,000 homes. So far, 84 rebuilding permits have been issued.

Instead of streamlining the process to get permits to rebuild, if anything, the city has made it harder. In a July 14 interview with the local ABC affiliate, one dispossessed homeowner claimed the city is adding new requirements and deadlines, saying, “They’re now requiring you to submit an itemized list with pricing, which is nearly impossible in a home that’s been owned for over 40, 50 years.”

But whether it’s California Governor Gavin Newsom or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the playbook is not designed to help people rebuild their homes and move back into the neighborhoods where their families have lived for generations. New regulations did not replace old regulations. They added as much as they removed, with the new ones being unfamiliar even to veteran builders. All of them, of course, came delivered with the rhetoric of streamlining, while in fact only adding complexity.

Newsom, a tool of corporatist special interests, and Bass, a socialist darling of public sector union bosses, were never playing a game intended to help anyone living in a “single-family detached home.” The new regulations, sold as a way to expedite permitting, were in fact a way to make rebuilding impossible for all but the wealthiest homeowners. And Newsom’s executive order that would “prevent opportunistic investors from exploiting vulnerable residents by offering below-market prices” was actually a move calculated to limit the options of homeowners while the special interests—including the government itself—lined up to purchase these properties.

This isn’t speculation. In late June, Los Angeles County’s “Blue Ribbon Commission on Climate Action and Fire-Safe Recovery” issued its “draft action plan” for “The Resilient and Sustainable Rebuilding of Los Angeles County.” This document is a textbook example of what corporate socialist elites have in store for those normal citizens who, to date, still maintain a modicum of financial independence.

Keep reading

What Is the PREP Act?

In conjunction with EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), the PREP Act is the legislation that enabled – and continues to perpetuate – the rollout and administration of mRNA “countermeasures” against Covid-19.

In this article I will discuss what the PREP Act says, how it was passed, what prominent politicians and legal experts said about it at the time, how it is related to Covid, and why I support efforts (1) calling for the HHS Secretary to immediately repeal the PREP Act emergency declaration for Covid, and (2) calling on legislators to repeal the law entirely.

What the PREP Act Says

The PREP Act is a long and convoluted piece of legislation. You can read the entire thing here:

42 U.S. Code § 247d-6d – Targeted liability protections for pandemic and epidemic products and security countermeasures

This is a summary of the main sections of the law:

(a) Liability Protections

  • Anyone defined as a “covered person” is immune from legal liability related to the use or administration of anything defined as a “covered countermeasure.”

A “covered person” includes (A) “the United States” or (B) any person or “entity” that manufactures, distributes, plans a program for, prescribes, administers, or dispenses a covered countermeasure, or an official, agent, or employee of any of the above.

A “covered countermeasure” includes any drug, biological product, or device that is authorized under Emergency Use Authorization or approved through any other legal pathway.

  • Scope of claims for loss:
    • The immunity applies to any claim related to death, actual or fear of physical, mental, or emotional injury, illness, disability, or condition; and loss of or damage to property, including business interruption loss.
    • The immunity applies to any causal relation to any of the above types of loss related to the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, or use of a covered countermeasure.
  • The immunity applies only if a countermeasure was applied or used during the effective period of the emergency declaration for that countermeasure, and was used for the disease, population, and geographic area specified in the declaration.
  • For manufacturers or distributors, the immunity applies to any population in any geographic area, without regard to the population or area specified in the emergency declaration for the countermeasure.

(b) Declaration by Secretary

  • The HHS Secretary has the sole discretion to determine that a disease or other health condition or other threat to health constitutes a public health emergency, or that there is a credible risk for a future such emergency and, based on that determination, to make a declaration recommending the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of one or more covered countermeasures, thereby activating the legal immunity described in section (a).
  • In the emergency declaration, which is made by publishing it in the Federal Register, the secretary shall identify – with respect to the use of countermeasures – the category of threat, the period during which the threat is in effect, the population for which it is in effect, and the geographic area for which it is in effect.
  • The period during which the emergency declaration is effective is flexible, depending on various determinations by the Secretary.
  • The Secretary can change any aspect of the declaration of emergency without retroactively affecting the immunity granted under the declaration.
  • The Secretary’s decision to issue an emergency declaration for immunity can be based on anything, including the “desirability of encouraging” the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, or licensing of a covered countermeasures
  • No court – whether Federal or State – has subject matter jurisdiction to review any action by the Secretary related to the emergency declaration
  • No State may pass or enforce any law that is different from or in conflict with anything related to the declaration of emergency or to anything related to the qualified persons or covered countermeasures.

(c) Definition of Willful Misconduct

(d) Exception to Immunity of Covered Persons

These two sections define the circumstances under which the PREP Act immunity does not apply. In general, the sole exception is defined as “an exclusive Federal cause of action against a covered person for death or serious physical injury caused by willful misconduct.”

The definition of “willful misconduct” is: “an act or omission taken intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose; knowingly without legal or factual justification; and in disregard of a known or obvious risk that is so great as to make it highly probable that the harm will outweigh the benefit.” This is specifically defined as “a standard for liability that is more stringent than a standard of negligence in any form or recklessness.”

A plaintiff who tries to sue under this section has “the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence willful misconduct.”

Keep reading

Nebraska Medical Marijuana Regulators Approve Emergency Rules Banning Flower Access For Patients

The Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission on Thursday approved emergency regulations to begin accepting medical cannabis applications as soon as Gov. Jim Pillen (R) gives his final green light.

State law requires him to do so by Tuesday.

The emergency regulations, unveiled for the first time minutes before the 10 a.m. meeting, largely mirror a legislative proposal that lawmakers stalled on last month. The regulations would take effect for up to 90 days, pending Pillen’s approval. The two medical cannabis-related laws that voters approved mandate that applications must start being accepted no later than July 1.

Commissioner Lorelle Mueting of Gretna, an addiction prevention specialist through Heartland Family Service, affirmed that commissioners want public feedback on the emergency regulations through July 15, to inform future, formal regulations.

Public comments may be submitted to lcc.frontdesk@nebraska.gov, the repository for the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, which will forward the messages onto the state’s new Medical Cannabis Commission.

“The input that the public provides on these emergency regulations will help us immediately begin drafting the regular regulations,” Mueting said Thursday.

Keep reading

Florida Invokes Emergency Powers to Build ‘Alligator Alcatraz’

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis invoked emergency powers on June 24 to clear the way for Alligator Alcatraz, a new illegal immigration detention center deep in the Everglades.

The plans for another complex to hold illegal immigrants apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—and awaiting processing and deportation—were drafted and submitted by the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) to the Department of Homeland Security and received Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s approval on June 23.

“Under President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, we are working at turbo speed to deliver cost-effective and innovative ways to deliver on the American people’s mandate for mass deportations of criminal illegal aliens,” Noem said on X.

“We will expand facilities and bed space in just days, thanks to our partnership with Florida.”

She said the facilities would be largely funded by FEMA’s Shelter and Services program, which she noted was used by former President Joe Biden’s administration to house illegal immigrants.

The site chosen was the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport.

Keep reading

Missouri governor activates National Guard, declares state of emergency

Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) on Thursday declared a state of emergency and activated the state’s National Guard in anticipation of protests across the state — and in response to “civil unrest” across the country.

Missouri Executive Order 25-25 declares a State of Emergency and allows the Adjutant General to order service members to aid state officials.

The order comes after the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Missouri National Guard and Missouri Department of Public Safety established a Unified Command to monitor situations across the state and prepare local law enforcement.

Additionally, the order also declares that the Adjutant General may employ necessary equipment to support authorities and provide assistance.

While nationwide protests continue to flare up in response to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, Kehoe said his order is purely precautionary.

“We respect, and will defend, the right to peacefully protest, but we will not tolerate violence or lawlessness in our state,” the governor said.

“While other states may wait for chaos to ensue, the State of Missouri is taking a proactive approach in the event that assistance is needed to support local law enforcement in protecting our citizens and communities,” he added.

To read Kehoe’s full order, click here.

Keep reading