This page celebrates significant actions of courageous Resisters who refused to be intimidated by authoritarians and their henchmen by “obeying in advance.”
Martin Nriemöller’s famous poem:
First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Qtr 3 - July 1 - Sept 30, 2026
This page includes actions by Other Authoritarians as well as Liars and
(Most Recent Action at the Top)
Dan Driscoll
U.S. Secretary of the Army - recently resigned
Resister
Sept 5 - During a White House meeting last week, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll directly addressed President Trump about his concerns regarding the Army’s future under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. This highlighted the escalating tensions between the two Pentagon leaders and the dysfunction within the building, according to four individuals familiar with the discussion.
Trump was taken aback when Driscoll revealed the number of generals and top officers who had been dismissed, sidelined, or overlooked for promotion under Hegseth. Driscoll argued that the Army’s transformation was hindered by the departure of so many leaders, and Trump expressed worry over the significant reductions in the Army’s senior leadership. Driscoll announced his intention to resign, and by today, he was leaving his position.
Hegseth’s extensive purge of the military has left the Army, the largest service branch, without a top civilian leader, a Senate-confirmed top general, a confirmed Army general in charge of operations, or a confirmed commander of Army troops in Europe. Due to the numerous firings over the past year, the Army, with over 450,000 active-duty soldiers worldwide, has fewer generals than at any time in recent history. Driscoll’s direct appeal to Trump just before his exit was the most explicit expression of high-level concerns among Pentagon leaders about the challenges facing the force, including Hegseth’s interference in Army personnel decisions and the increasing demands of the Iran conflict.
A source familiar with Driscoll’s resignation mentioned that he had “raised concerns with the administration about Army transformation and readiness, and Hegseth’s obstruction of those efforts, particularly by firing the generals responsible.”
Since joining the Pentagon early last year, Hegseth, a former Fox News host who appealed to Trump loyalists by criticizing a “woke” military and advocating for leniency for troops charged with war crimes, has aimed to reshape the Army. He has appointed like-minded generals to influential positions, intervened to block promotions of lower-ranking officers, and dismantled diversity initiatives. This has resulted in an Army depleted of leaders and constant conflict between the Army secretary and the Pentagon chief. Hegseth has ended numerous Army careers without clear justification and has now driven out the Army secretary.
Driscoll, a confidant of Vice President Vance, had access to the West Wing and occasionally served as a counterbalance to Hegseth’s impulses, but only to a limited extent.
Like Hegseth, Driscoll joined the military during the robust years of Washington’s post-9/11 wars. Both served in Iraq in company-grade roles. (Hegseth, a National Guardsman, also deployed to Afghanistan.) They returned with sharp criticisms of America’s overseas military engagements and its rigid traditions. Both attended Ivy League schools: Hegseth, Princeton and Harvard; Driscoll, Yale Law, where he befriended fellow veteran Vance.
Army personnel appointments were a significant source of friction. Hegseth has not hesitated to dismiss or promote officers as he sees fit, often in ways that have upset others in the Pentagon. Driscoll supported General Randy George, the Army chief of staff, whose name appeared on a list circulated before Trump’s return to office of senior officers to be fired due to perceived transgressions against the MAGA agenda. Although Driscoll may have delayed George’s dismissal, Hegseth ultimately fired him in April. Chris Donahue, the four-star general who led U.S. Army Europe and Africa, was dismissed several months later.
The Army has long valued representing the country’s diversity, but under Hegseth, minorities and women have been excluded or denied promotions. The military has traditionally aimed to remain apolitical, but under Hegseth, troops are evaluated not by combat experience but by perceived loyalty to the administration. Among the generals fired have been some of the most experienced and decorated in the service. Each departure represents the loss of decades of investment in that soldier and raises questions about how future troops can advance through the ranks.
Trump was taken aback when Driscoll revealed the number of generals and top officers who had been dismissed, sidelined, or overlooked for promotion under Hegseth. Driscoll argued that the Army’s transformation was hindered by the departure of so many leaders, and Trump expressed worry over the significant reductions in the Army’s senior leadership. Driscoll announced his intention to resign, and by today, he was leaving his position.
Hegseth’s extensive purge of the military has left the Army, the largest service branch, without a top civilian leader, a Senate-confirmed top general, a confirmed Army general in charge of operations, or a confirmed commander of Army troops in Europe. Due to the numerous firings over the past year, the Army, with over 450,000 active-duty soldiers worldwide, has fewer generals than at any time in recent history. Driscoll’s direct appeal to Trump just before his exit was the most explicit expression of high-level concerns among Pentagon leaders about the challenges facing the force, including Hegseth’s interference in Army personnel decisions and the increasing demands of the Iran conflict.
A source familiar with Driscoll’s resignation mentioned that he had “raised concerns with the administration about Army transformation and readiness, and Hegseth’s obstruction of those efforts, particularly by firing the generals responsible.”
Since joining the Pentagon early last year, Hegseth, a former Fox News host who appealed to Trump loyalists by criticizing a “woke” military and advocating for leniency for troops charged with war crimes, has aimed to reshape the Army. He has appointed like-minded generals to influential positions, intervened to block promotions of lower-ranking officers, and dismantled diversity initiatives. This has resulted in an Army depleted of leaders and constant conflict between the Army secretary and the Pentagon chief. Hegseth has ended numerous Army careers without clear justification and has now driven out the Army secretary.
Driscoll, a confidant of Vice President Vance, had access to the West Wing and occasionally served as a counterbalance to Hegseth’s impulses, but only to a limited extent.
Like Hegseth, Driscoll joined the military during the robust years of Washington’s post-9/11 wars. Both served in Iraq in company-grade roles. (Hegseth, a National Guardsman, also deployed to Afghanistan.) They returned with sharp criticisms of America’s overseas military engagements and its rigid traditions. Both attended Ivy League schools: Hegseth, Princeton and Harvard; Driscoll, Yale Law, where he befriended fellow veteran Vance.
Army personnel appointments were a significant source of friction. Hegseth has not hesitated to dismiss or promote officers as he sees fit, often in ways that have upset others in the Pentagon. Driscoll supported General Randy George, the Army chief of staff, whose name appeared on a list circulated before Trump’s return to office of senior officers to be fired due to perceived transgressions against the MAGA agenda. Although Driscoll may have delayed George’s dismissal, Hegseth ultimately fired him in April. Chris Donahue, the four-star general who led U.S. Army Europe and Africa, was dismissed several months later.
The Army has long valued representing the country’s diversity, but under Hegseth, minorities and women have been excluded or denied promotions. The military has traditionally aimed to remain apolitical, but under Hegseth, troops are evaluated not by combat experience but by perceived loyalty to the administration. Among the generals fired have been some of the most experienced and decorated in the service. Each departure represents the loss of decades of investment in that soldier and raises questions about how future troops can advance through the ranks.
MapQuest
American free online web mapping service
Resister
Aug 31 - Shortly after President Trump’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario to “Lake America,” Google Maps updated its system to reflect this change. U.S. users searching for the lake on Google Maps are now directed to “Lake America.” Although Apple Maps has not yet adopted this name for the smallest Great Lake, it has already renamed the “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America,” following Trump’s first-day order.
However, Mapquest has resisted these renaming efforts, maintaining the original name for the lake. In a Facebook post, Mapquest stated, “We’re not changing it,” and introduced a tool allowing users to download maps with custom names for the lake. This stance was not unexpected, given Mapquest’s existence, which dates back to 1996 as a pioneer in online navigation. The company was acquired by System1, an advertising platform, in 2019, after being sold by Verizon, which had acquired it from AOL in 2015.
Mapquest’s decision has gained it renewed attention, with “hundreds of thousands” of new downloads since the Lake America announcement, according to general manager Doug Berger. Despite this, experts note that Trump lacks the authority to rename the Great Lakes, which are managed by a joint U.S.-Canada commission. The president’s renaming power is limited to federal maps and agencies, leaving other nations and private map providers free to choose their own designations.
However, Mapquest has resisted these renaming efforts, maintaining the original name for the lake. In a Facebook post, Mapquest stated, “We’re not changing it,” and introduced a tool allowing users to download maps with custom names for the lake. This stance was not unexpected, given Mapquest’s existence, which dates back to 1996 as a pioneer in online navigation. The company was acquired by System1, an advertising platform, in 2019, after being sold by Verizon, which had acquired it from AOL in 2015.
Mapquest’s decision has gained it renewed attention, with “hundreds of thousands” of new downloads since the Lake America announcement, according to general manager Doug Berger. Despite this, experts note that Trump lacks the authority to rename the Great Lakes, which are managed by a joint U.S.-Canada commission. The president’s renaming power is limited to federal maps and agencies, leaving other nations and private map providers free to choose their own designations.
Judge Noel Wise
District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Resister
Aug 29 - A federal judge ruled on Friday that the Trump administration’s attempts to deport noncitizens for political speech violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. This decision is the latest legal challenge to the White House’s broad immigration policies. Judge Noël Wise of the Northern District of California, appointed by former President Joe Biden, supported the Stanford Daily’s lawsuit against Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The lawsuit argued that Rubio’s use of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deport noncitizen students led foreign students to avoid writing opinion pieces critical of the administration.
“In the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people,” Judge Wise stated in her opinion. “It is not the government’s to take.” Another plaintiff was a lawful noncitizen woman who had previously been on a student visa at a non-Stanford school. She had stopped publishing her true opinions on Palestine and Israel and deleted a social media account to avoid retaliation, according to court documents.
“Here you can simultaneously hate the content of a person’s speech and love the country that cherishes the freedom to allow it,” Wise wrote. “Zealous protection of our Constitutional right to free speech is a provocative demonstration of our country’s powerful lack of fear.”
The State Department did not immediately comment on the ruling. This decision follows the administration’s campaign last year to revoke visas and seek deportations of foreign students involved in the pro-Palestinian movement. Among those facing deportation were Columbia University activists Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi, Tufts University doctoral graduate Rümeysa Öztürk, and Georgetown University scholar Badar Khan Suri.
Khalil, a green card holder, was detained for over three months after leading pro-Palestinian protests. Mahdawi, also a lawful permanent resident, was arrested during a citizenship interview. Öztürk was detained by masked agents in Boston after the State Department revoked her student visa due to an op-ed she co-authored criticizing her school’s response to the Gaza war.
These cases became part of a larger legal and political battle over the administration’s efforts to suppress campus activism that did not align with their foreign policy. The administration claimed the students’ presence could harm U.S. foreign policy, while the students and their lawyers argued they were being punished for constitutionally protected free speech.
The detentions also led to protests and opposition from Democratic lawmakers. Demonstrators rallied in New York and Massachusetts demanding the release of Khalil and Öztürk, and members of Congress questioned the administration’s actions toward the students.
“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” said Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which sued Rubio on behalf of the Stanford Daily. “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child,” he stated.
“In the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people,” Judge Wise stated in her opinion. “It is not the government’s to take.” Another plaintiff was a lawful noncitizen woman who had previously been on a student visa at a non-Stanford school. She had stopped publishing her true opinions on Palestine and Israel and deleted a social media account to avoid retaliation, according to court documents.
“Here you can simultaneously hate the content of a person’s speech and love the country that cherishes the freedom to allow it,” Wise wrote. “Zealous protection of our Constitutional right to free speech is a provocative demonstration of our country’s powerful lack of fear.”
The State Department did not immediately comment on the ruling. This decision follows the administration’s campaign last year to revoke visas and seek deportations of foreign students involved in the pro-Palestinian movement. Among those facing deportation were Columbia University activists Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi, Tufts University doctoral graduate Rümeysa Öztürk, and Georgetown University scholar Badar Khan Suri.
Khalil, a green card holder, was detained for over three months after leading pro-Palestinian protests. Mahdawi, also a lawful permanent resident, was arrested during a citizenship interview. Öztürk was detained by masked agents in Boston after the State Department revoked her student visa due to an op-ed she co-authored criticizing her school’s response to the Gaza war.
These cases became part of a larger legal and political battle over the administration’s efforts to suppress campus activism that did not align with their foreign policy. The administration claimed the students’ presence could harm U.S. foreign policy, while the students and their lawyers argued they were being punished for constitutionally protected free speech.
The detentions also led to protests and opposition from Democratic lawmakers. Demonstrators rallied in New York and Massachusetts demanding the release of Khalil and Öztürk, and members of Congress questioned the administration’s actions toward the students.
“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” said Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which sued Rubio on behalf of the Stanford Daily. “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child,” he stated.
Will Rosenzweig
Former Federal Prosecutor in Miami
Resister
Aug 12 - Last September, right-wing influencer Natalie Winters posted an “EXCLUSIVE” on social media, claiming a federal prosecutor in Miami had written a blog critical of President Trump. Winters, with a large following, directly addressed senior Justice Department officials, demanding Rosenzweig’s dismissal. Less than three hours later, Pam Bondi, then the attorney general, emailed Rosenzweig, firing him without providing a reason.
Rosenzweig, who had a commendable career, sued the Justice Department, along with current department head Todd Blanche and U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason A. Reding Quiñones, seeking financial damages and reinstatement. This lawsuit is part of a broader trend of former prosecutors and federal agents challenging the removal of officials perceived as disloyal to the president.
The day after his dismissal, Winters shared a message from far-right influencer Laura Loomer, celebrating the news with a smiley-face emoji. Although many of Winters’s posts have been deleted, Rosenzweig’s lawyers included screenshots in their lawsuit, showing her accusing Rosenzweig of calling Trump “mentally unfit” and a “white supremacist.”
It’s unclear why Winters labeled the fraud case defendants as “MAGA patriots,” as Marcelo Kochen, Michael Kochen, and Sandro Herek have no apparent public ties to Trump. They were charged with Medicare fraud. Michael Kochen and Herek were recently convicted and sentenced, while Marcelo Kochen’s case is separate and pending trial.
In their Miami Federal District Court lawsuit, Rosenzweig’s lawyers questioned how Winters knew about his involvement in the fraud case and his old blog posts critical of Trump, noting the case had received little media attention and the blog had been inactive for nearly seven years.
Rosenzweig’s abrupt firing occurred just before the fraud trial, causing chaos in his office. As they sought a replacement, the government requested a trial delay, but the defendants, who had previously asked for a delay, now insisted on proceeding as planned for a tactical advantage.
Rosenzweig’s lawyers argued that his blog posts criticizing Trump were protected by the First Amendment, as they were written as a private citizen before joining the Justice Department and addressed public concerns. They claimed his dismissal was due to his protected speech or perceived political beliefs.
Rosenzweig, who had a commendable career, sued the Justice Department, along with current department head Todd Blanche and U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason A. Reding Quiñones, seeking financial damages and reinstatement. This lawsuit is part of a broader trend of former prosecutors and federal agents challenging the removal of officials perceived as disloyal to the president.
The day after his dismissal, Winters shared a message from far-right influencer Laura Loomer, celebrating the news with a smiley-face emoji. Although many of Winters’s posts have been deleted, Rosenzweig’s lawyers included screenshots in their lawsuit, showing her accusing Rosenzweig of calling Trump “mentally unfit” and a “white supremacist.”
It’s unclear why Winters labeled the fraud case defendants as “MAGA patriots,” as Marcelo Kochen, Michael Kochen, and Sandro Herek have no apparent public ties to Trump. They were charged with Medicare fraud. Michael Kochen and Herek were recently convicted and sentenced, while Marcelo Kochen’s case is separate and pending trial.
In their Miami Federal District Court lawsuit, Rosenzweig’s lawyers questioned how Winters knew about his involvement in the fraud case and his old blog posts critical of Trump, noting the case had received little media attention and the blog had been inactive for nearly seven years.
Rosenzweig’s abrupt firing occurred just before the fraud trial, causing chaos in his office. As they sought a replacement, the government requested a trial delay, but the defendants, who had previously asked for a delay, now insisted on proceeding as planned for a tactical advantage.
Rosenzweig’s lawyers argued that his blog posts criticizing Trump were protected by the First Amendment, as they were written as a private citizen before joining the Justice Department and addressed public concerns. They claimed his dismissal was due to his protected speech or perceived political beliefs.
Jeanine Pirro
US Attorney for the District of Columbia
Resister
Aug 8 - Jeanine Pirro arrived in Washington last year as a prominent prosecutor and strong supporter of President Donald Trump. She quickly became a visible figure, attending crime scenes, community forums, court hearings, TV interviews, and various social events.
However, after over a year as U.S. attorney in the capital, Pirro is now at odds with Trump, with her position at risk due to issues with blue liner peeling off the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Pirro, who transitioned from a Fox News host to the top federal prosecutor in D.C., initially pursued severe charges for violent crimes and initiated investigations into several public officials who had angered Trump, later deflecting responsibility to judges and juries when these efforts failed.
Her decision to drop cases of alleged vandalism at the newly renovated pool contradicted Trump, attributing the problem to the administration’s chosen contractor. This situation highlighted a conflict between Pirro’s loyalty to Trump and her legal duties.
“She thought she had covered all of her bases — that’s what she thought — and then, of course, things went south,” said someone who has known Pirro for decades about her current situation with the president.
Observers of Pirro’s career as a judge, district attorney, conservative author, and TV personality describe her as a prosecutor at heart, passionate about crime-fighting and victim protection, who found renewed purpose when Trump appointed her to lead one of the busiest U.S. attorney’s offices.
Critics argue that few in the Justice Department have been as eager as Pirro to pursue prosecutions or test legal boundaries to align with Trump’s interests and adversaries.
This account of Pirro’s challenging tenure as U.S. attorney, and her handling of being the prosecutor in Trump’s territory, is based on court records and interviews with 11 individuals familiar with key events, most of whom spoke anonymously for candid assessments while her job remains uncertain. Pirro declined an interview request through a spokesperson.
Her issues began after the Trump administration applied a blue sealant to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool for the July Fourth celebrations. The paint soon began to peel, leading to arrests of visitors who attempted to grab the pieces, as court records indicate.
Trump accused vandals of damaging the pool’s “beautiful facade,” and Pirro initially charged four individuals, including a former Olympic canoeist, with felony destruction of property. At a news conference, Pirro criticized the defendant and emphasized her office’s commitment to protecting national resources and monuments.
However, Pirro later dropped all charges, blaming the Interior Department for misleading prosecutors with unsupported charges, and soon met with Trump in the Oval Office to explain her actions.
A former judge and district attorney from Westchester County, New York, Pirro presented evidence to the White House showing that the Interior Department had awarded a no-bid contract to a company that improperly applied the liner, according to sources. This evidence is detailed in a 20-page court filing submitted by the U.S. attorney’s office, stating that the damage was due to a faulty installation, not vandalism.
Pirro had personally reviewed and approved the filing, expressing frustration over the delayed release of documents from the Interior Department and her belief that they undermined any chance of a successful prosecution against the alleged vandals. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum countered, stating on X that the evidence clearly indicated vandalism caused the pool damage.
One person familiar with Pirro’s approach to the White House meeting described it as: “Stand her ground, be focused, make her case, and do the right thing.”
Pirro’s office stated in the Reflecting Pool court filing that prosecutors were voluntarily dismissing the charges. Trump criticized Pirro, saying she “folded like an umbrella.”
“I just think she was totally wrong,” Trump told reporters, noting that National Park Service employees reported seeing vandals. He dismissed contractor issues as “a couple of little things” and had not decided whether to retain Pirro.
Trump continued his criticism on social media, stating that “U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro should revisit her hastily made decision.”
However, after over a year as U.S. attorney in the capital, Pirro is now at odds with Trump, with her position at risk due to issues with blue liner peeling off the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Pirro, who transitioned from a Fox News host to the top federal prosecutor in D.C., initially pursued severe charges for violent crimes and initiated investigations into several public officials who had angered Trump, later deflecting responsibility to judges and juries when these efforts failed.
Her decision to drop cases of alleged vandalism at the newly renovated pool contradicted Trump, attributing the problem to the administration’s chosen contractor. This situation highlighted a conflict between Pirro’s loyalty to Trump and her legal duties.
“She thought she had covered all of her bases — that’s what she thought — and then, of course, things went south,” said someone who has known Pirro for decades about her current situation with the president.
Observers of Pirro’s career as a judge, district attorney, conservative author, and TV personality describe her as a prosecutor at heart, passionate about crime-fighting and victim protection, who found renewed purpose when Trump appointed her to lead one of the busiest U.S. attorney’s offices.
Critics argue that few in the Justice Department have been as eager as Pirro to pursue prosecutions or test legal boundaries to align with Trump’s interests and adversaries.
This account of Pirro’s challenging tenure as U.S. attorney, and her handling of being the prosecutor in Trump’s territory, is based on court records and interviews with 11 individuals familiar with key events, most of whom spoke anonymously for candid assessments while her job remains uncertain. Pirro declined an interview request through a spokesperson.
Her issues began after the Trump administration applied a blue sealant to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool for the July Fourth celebrations. The paint soon began to peel, leading to arrests of visitors who attempted to grab the pieces, as court records indicate.
Trump accused vandals of damaging the pool’s “beautiful facade,” and Pirro initially charged four individuals, including a former Olympic canoeist, with felony destruction of property. At a news conference, Pirro criticized the defendant and emphasized her office’s commitment to protecting national resources and monuments.
However, Pirro later dropped all charges, blaming the Interior Department for misleading prosecutors with unsupported charges, and soon met with Trump in the Oval Office to explain her actions.
A former judge and district attorney from Westchester County, New York, Pirro presented evidence to the White House showing that the Interior Department had awarded a no-bid contract to a company that improperly applied the liner, according to sources. This evidence is detailed in a 20-page court filing submitted by the U.S. attorney’s office, stating that the damage was due to a faulty installation, not vandalism.
Pirro had personally reviewed and approved the filing, expressing frustration over the delayed release of documents from the Interior Department and her belief that they undermined any chance of a successful prosecution against the alleged vandals. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum countered, stating on X that the evidence clearly indicated vandalism caused the pool damage.
One person familiar with Pirro’s approach to the White House meeting described it as: “Stand her ground, be focused, make her case, and do the right thing.”
Pirro’s office stated in the Reflecting Pool court filing that prosecutors were voluntarily dismissing the charges. Trump criticized Pirro, saying she “folded like an umbrella.”
“I just think she was totally wrong,” Trump told reporters, noting that National Park Service employees reported seeing vandals. He dismissed contractor issues as “a couple of little things” and had not decided whether to retain Pirro.
Trump continued his criticism on social media, stating that “U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro should revisit her hastily made decision.”
ABC
American commercial broadcast television and radio network
Resister
Aug 1 - ABC has accused Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr of “attempted censorship” in a regulatory filing, claiming the agency is creating a chilling effect on the media by aiding President Donald Trump in targeting his perceived enemies. The Disney-owned network stated that the retaliation against ABC serves as a warning to all media companies to align with the Administration’s view of news coverage or face consequences, in response to the potential loss of its eight TV broadcasting licenses.
ABC’s lawyers, in a 119-page filing, highlighted that various government agencies have used regulatory and contracting tactics against other disfavored speakers, aiming to instill fear in the media industry to prevent free reporting. Carr has denied censorship accusations, defending his actions to curb what he describes as abusive, politically motivated behavior by licensed TV broadcasters. He stated, “I don’t view the FCC as the speech police,” in an interview with POLITICO.
ABC referenced over 152,000 comments in the agency’s license review, as well as warnings from conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and pro-free-market organizations about the risks of a politically motivated FCC. These include letters from a bipartisan group of former FCC leaders, community and advocacy groups, and lawmakers from both parties.
The network emphasized that the Commission’s actions have drawn condemnation across the political spectrum. ABC’s response is part of its ongoing conflict with Carr, who in April initiated an early license review of all eight Disney-owned TV stations. Carr attributed this move to an agency investigation into Disney’s hiring practices, while pro-Trump groups like the Center for American Rights and Media Research Center requested the denial of license renewals in June, citing complaints about ABC’s programming politics.
Trump intensified the situation this month by calling for ABC and NBC to lose their broadcasting licenses during a live television address on election security, accusing them of “fraud” for not airing his speech. A week later, Carr mentioned that the issue would likely arise in the ABC license review and suggested that broadcasters should generally air key presidential addresses.
ABC included this incident in its filing, along with other threats Trump has made over the years against the network’s licenses. The network urged the FCC to dismiss the conservative petitions to deny the licenses, arguing they lack merit and involve questionable territory for the agency. ABC asserted that the Commission cannot base renewal decisions on a station’s programming content or condition renewal on airtime given to specific viewpoints or stories.
Separately, ABC is defending its daytime show “The View” in another proceeding regarding whether its interviews qualify as “bona fide news,” which would exempt it from FCC requirements to offer equal time to opposing political candidates. Carr has indicated a renewed enforcement of this rule, after years of the agency largely overlooking late-night and daytime talk shows. Carr has refuted claims that the license review is politically motivated, attributing the need to review Disney’s licenses to a lack of transparency in the network’s response to the FCC’s diversity investigation, which began last year.
ABC’s lawyers, in a 119-page filing, highlighted that various government agencies have used regulatory and contracting tactics against other disfavored speakers, aiming to instill fear in the media industry to prevent free reporting. Carr has denied censorship accusations, defending his actions to curb what he describes as abusive, politically motivated behavior by licensed TV broadcasters. He stated, “I don’t view the FCC as the speech police,” in an interview with POLITICO.
ABC referenced over 152,000 comments in the agency’s license review, as well as warnings from conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and pro-free-market organizations about the risks of a politically motivated FCC. These include letters from a bipartisan group of former FCC leaders, community and advocacy groups, and lawmakers from both parties.
The network emphasized that the Commission’s actions have drawn condemnation across the political spectrum. ABC’s response is part of its ongoing conflict with Carr, who in April initiated an early license review of all eight Disney-owned TV stations. Carr attributed this move to an agency investigation into Disney’s hiring practices, while pro-Trump groups like the Center for American Rights and Media Research Center requested the denial of license renewals in June, citing complaints about ABC’s programming politics.
Trump intensified the situation this month by calling for ABC and NBC to lose their broadcasting licenses during a live television address on election security, accusing them of “fraud” for not airing his speech. A week later, Carr mentioned that the issue would likely arise in the ABC license review and suggested that broadcasters should generally air key presidential addresses.
ABC included this incident in its filing, along with other threats Trump has made over the years against the network’s licenses. The network urged the FCC to dismiss the conservative petitions to deny the licenses, arguing they lack merit and involve questionable territory for the agency. ABC asserted that the Commission cannot base renewal decisions on a station’s programming content or condition renewal on airtime given to specific viewpoints or stories.
Separately, ABC is defending its daytime show “The View” in another proceeding regarding whether its interviews qualify as “bona fide news,” which would exempt it from FCC requirements to offer equal time to opposing political candidates. Carr has indicated a renewed enforcement of this rule, after years of the agency largely overlooking late-night and daytime talk shows. Carr has refuted claims that the license review is politically motivated, attributing the need to review Disney’s licenses to a lack of transparency in the network’s response to the FCC’s diversity investigation, which began last year.
Senator John Cornyn
US Senator (R-TX)
Resister
Senator Thom Tillis
US Senator (R-NC)
Resister
July 31 - After Senator John Cornyn lost his re-election to a Trump-backed challenger, he predicted a challenging Senate period for the president, warning that he and other lame-duck senators had leverage to use. This week, Cornyn either became a significant obstacle or made a bold move by using his Judiciary Committee vote to delay Trump’s attorney general nominee, Todd Blanche, as the Senate adjourned for the weekend.
Cornyn and Senator Thom Tillis, who chose not to seek re-election after Trump’s threats, stated they would not advance Blanche’s nomination unless the Justice Department narrowed an immunity deal Trump made with the I.R.S. This deal, negotiated by Blanche, potentially saves Trump, his family, and businesses at least $100 million in penalties, drawing Democratic accusations of self-dealing. Cornyn and Tillis are not aiming to nullify the deal but seek written modifications.
Cornyn’s stance is notable given his past reliability as a Trump supporter and his political future being cut short by Trump. He seems to enjoy the shift in power, indicating his newfound independence. Cornyn emphasized that concerns about the tax lawsuit settlement’s provisions extend beyond him and Tillis.
His request is modest: the Justice Department should confirm that the I.R.S. immunity applies only to Trump, his two sons, and the Trump Organization, limited to past tax return audits. Cornyn insists on this being documented, breaking from the pattern of Republicans offering vague objections and backing down after broad assurances. He added that if Blanche cannot clarify this, it may indicate a misunderstanding of his testimony.
Cornyn and Senator Thom Tillis, who chose not to seek re-election after Trump’s threats, stated they would not advance Blanche’s nomination unless the Justice Department narrowed an immunity deal Trump made with the I.R.S. This deal, negotiated by Blanche, potentially saves Trump, his family, and businesses at least $100 million in penalties, drawing Democratic accusations of self-dealing. Cornyn and Tillis are not aiming to nullify the deal but seek written modifications.
Cornyn’s stance is notable given his past reliability as a Trump supporter and his political future being cut short by Trump. He seems to enjoy the shift in power, indicating his newfound independence. Cornyn emphasized that concerns about the tax lawsuit settlement’s provisions extend beyond him and Tillis.
His request is modest: the Justice Department should confirm that the I.R.S. immunity applies only to Trump, his two sons, and the Trump Organization, limited to past tax return audits. Cornyn insists on this being documented, breaking from the pattern of Republicans offering vague objections and backing down after broad assurances. He added that if Blanche cannot clarify this, it may indicate a misunderstanding of his testimony.
Marc Rosenblum
The Department of Homeland Security’s chief statistician
Resister
July 29 - The Department of Homeland Security’s chief statistician, Marc Rosenblum, has resigned, criticizing the Trump administration’s “war on immigrants.” DHS has been controversial during Trump’s second term, with ICE raids, excessive spending, numerous detention centers, and attempts to conceal data. Few officials have openly criticized the department’s direction, but Rosenblum is one of the first. In a LinkedIn post, he expressed relief at leaving the administration, citing issues like the “war on immigrants,” “war on feds,” “war on facts,” and corruption.
Rosenblum, who also served in the first Trump and Biden administrations, initially led DHS’s immigration statistics office and later oversaw statistics for the entire department, covering areas like cybersecurity, trafficking, and deportations. His office grew to 45 people during the Biden years but has since downsized. Despite the challenges of transparency in a domestic security agency, Rosenblum promised greater openness when he took on his role in 2023, stating plans to release data more quickly and comprehensively.
However, data from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics’ website on ICE detentions, Border Patrol encounters, and DHS repatriations has not been updated since February 11, 2025, shortly after Trump’s second term began. Information obtained through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits has been inconsistent and unreliable, according to analysts. David Bier from the Cato Institute noted the lack of accountability and public understanding, emphasizing that information is often curated by agency press releases.
In response to Rosenblum’s resignation and comments, a DHS spokesperson stated that personal opinions do not equate to facts and declined to comment on individual decisions. Rosenblum is among several DHS officials who have left since Trump’s second inauguration, including acting ICE director Todd Lyons and multiple acting FEMA chiefs, though most have not publicly criticized the administration. Kristi Noem, Trump’s first DHS chief, left amid scandal, and her aide Corey Lewandowski was also controversial. ICE lawyer Ryan Schwank was an exception, testifying about the flawed training program for new recruits.
Schwank is now joined by Rosenblum, who, before joining the first Trump administration, warned against mass deportation, describing it as risky, expensive, and cruel. In a 2015 Senate committee testimony, he highlighted the tension between humane enforcement and stricter immigration control, noting the damage to families and communities. He also cautioned that enforcement efforts could harm the American economy, as two-thirds of unauthorized immigrants are employed, and deportations could disrupt labor markets and reduce job creation. Deporting all 11 million unauthorized immigrants could cut the US workforce by 6.4 percent and reduce GDP by $1.6 trillion, according to one estimate.
Rosenblum, who also served in the first Trump and Biden administrations, initially led DHS’s immigration statistics office and later oversaw statistics for the entire department, covering areas like cybersecurity, trafficking, and deportations. His office grew to 45 people during the Biden years but has since downsized. Despite the challenges of transparency in a domestic security agency, Rosenblum promised greater openness when he took on his role in 2023, stating plans to release data more quickly and comprehensively.
However, data from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics’ website on ICE detentions, Border Patrol encounters, and DHS repatriations has not been updated since February 11, 2025, shortly after Trump’s second term began. Information obtained through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits has been inconsistent and unreliable, according to analysts. David Bier from the Cato Institute noted the lack of accountability and public understanding, emphasizing that information is often curated by agency press releases.
In response to Rosenblum’s resignation and comments, a DHS spokesperson stated that personal opinions do not equate to facts and declined to comment on individual decisions. Rosenblum is among several DHS officials who have left since Trump’s second inauguration, including acting ICE director Todd Lyons and multiple acting FEMA chiefs, though most have not publicly criticized the administration. Kristi Noem, Trump’s first DHS chief, left amid scandal, and her aide Corey Lewandowski was also controversial. ICE lawyer Ryan Schwank was an exception, testifying about the flawed training program for new recruits.
Schwank is now joined by Rosenblum, who, before joining the first Trump administration, warned against mass deportation, describing it as risky, expensive, and cruel. In a 2015 Senate committee testimony, he highlighted the tension between humane enforcement and stricter immigration control, noting the damage to families and communities. He also cautioned that enforcement efforts could harm the American economy, as two-thirds of unauthorized immigrants are employed, and deportations could disrupt labor markets and reduce job creation. Deporting all 11 million unauthorized immigrants could cut the US workforce by 6.4 percent and reduce GDP by $1.6 trillion, according to one estimate.
Judge Cathy Seibel
District Judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of New Kork
Resister
Tim Bakken
Law Professor at West Point Military Academy
Resister
July 26 - A federal judge blocked restrictions set by the Trump administration that barred faculty at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (USMA) from speaking to external groups without permission. U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel sided with a longtime law professor, suggesting the policy likely infringes on civilian professors’ First Amendment rights. In her 85-page opinion, Seibel stated that even with deference to military affairs, the justifications for the Academic Engagement Policy do not justify such a broad restriction on faculty speech. Seibel, appointed by former President George W. Bush, serves on the federal bench in New York.
West Point, which does not comment on ongoing litigation, will collaborate with Department of Justice attorneys from the Southern District of New York on next steps. The policy, implemented last year after President Trump returned to the White House, required faculty to obtain approval from department heads to engage with external audiences within their expertise while on duty or using USMA branding. This included conferences, press interviews, and podcasts. The policy followed an executive order by Trump prohibiting military academies from promoting “un-American” and “discriminatory” theories, part of a broader crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
West Point law professor Tim Bakken filed a class-action lawsuit last September challenging the policy and an unofficial directive against faculty sharing personal opinions in the classroom. Seibel’s ruling dismissed the Justice Department’s argument that the case should be handled by a specialty board for federal employee disputes, not a federal district judge, and that intervention would interfere with the military. She emphasized that a court need not defer to mere conjecture, even when military readiness is involved.
While the ruling blocks the policy for civilian professors, it does not affect enforcement against active-duty faculty. The decision came shortly after West Point’s graduation ceremony, where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticized diversity initiatives from the previous administration, telling cadets that combat is the ultimate test and must be aced.
West Point, which does not comment on ongoing litigation, will collaborate with Department of Justice attorneys from the Southern District of New York on next steps. The policy, implemented last year after President Trump returned to the White House, required faculty to obtain approval from department heads to engage with external audiences within their expertise while on duty or using USMA branding. This included conferences, press interviews, and podcasts. The policy followed an executive order by Trump prohibiting military academies from promoting “un-American” and “discriminatory” theories, part of a broader crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
West Point law professor Tim Bakken filed a class-action lawsuit last September challenging the policy and an unofficial directive against faculty sharing personal opinions in the classroom. Seibel’s ruling dismissed the Justice Department’s argument that the case should be handled by a specialty board for federal employee disputes, not a federal district judge, and that intervention would interfere with the military. She emphasized that a court need not defer to mere conjecture, even when military readiness is involved.
While the ruling blocks the policy for civilian professors, it does not affect enforcement against active-duty faculty. The decision came shortly after West Point’s graduation ceremony, where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticized diversity initiatives from the previous administration, telling cadets that combat is the ultimate test and must be aced.
Judge Indira Talwani
District Judge of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Resister
July 18 - U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston sided with a group of Democratic-led states, asserting that the administration was improperly utilizing a U.S. Office of Management and Budget regulation to revoke grants after they had been awarded.
The Trump administration has relied on a specific clause within the regulation to cancel grant funding that it perceives as supporting initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as climate change preparedness programs. This has led to a series of lawsuits concerning the specific grant cuts.
Judge Talwani, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, stated that the states were correct in their argument that the clause “prohibits agencies from terminating grants based on program goals and agency priorities that are identified after grants have been awarded.”
She emphasized that the administration’s interpretation of the clause lacks legal basis and that agencies cannot impose such conditions on spending without violating the U.S. Constitution. Judge Talwani clarified that the regulation only requires grantees to be informed about those goals and priorities before grants are awarded.
The dispute revolves around a provision that was added to OMB regulations in 2020 during Trump’s first term. This provision grants agencies the authority to terminate a grant if it “no longer achieves the program goals or agency priorities.”
Since Trump’s return to office, numerous federal agencies have invoked this provision to cancel billions of dollars in grants.
The Democratic-led states contend that the administration is misinterpreting the clause. This clause was revised further under Democratic President Joe Biden and had not previously been perceived as granting agencies such broad authority to terminate grants.
The Trump administration has relied on a specific clause within the regulation to cancel grant funding that it perceives as supporting initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as climate change preparedness programs. This has led to a series of lawsuits concerning the specific grant cuts.
Judge Talwani, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, stated that the states were correct in their argument that the clause “prohibits agencies from terminating grants based on program goals and agency priorities that are identified after grants have been awarded.”
She emphasized that the administration’s interpretation of the clause lacks legal basis and that agencies cannot impose such conditions on spending without violating the U.S. Constitution. Judge Talwani clarified that the regulation only requires grantees to be informed about those goals and priorities before grants are awarded.
The dispute revolves around a provision that was added to OMB regulations in 2020 during Trump’s first term. This provision grants agencies the authority to terminate a grant if it “no longer achieves the program goals or agency priorities.”
Since Trump’s return to office, numerous federal agencies have invoked this provision to cancel billions of dollars in grants.
The Democratic-led states contend that the administration is misinterpreting the clause. This clause was revised further under Democratic President Joe Biden and had not previously been perceived as granting agencies such broad authority to terminate grants.
Kenneth Kies
Assistant Treasury Secretary and Acting Chief counsel of the Internal Revenue Service
Resister
July 17 - The Treasury Department’s top tax policy official, Kenneth Kies, was forced out of his job after he warned that the White House was at risk of violating a federal law that prohibits senior officials from being involved in IRS audits. This information comes from people familiar with the matter.
Kies, who is an assistant Treasury secretary and acting chief counsel of the Internal Revenue Service, will be leaving his positions in the coming weeks.
According to the people involved, Kies had occasional clashes with White House officials. One notable incident involved a recent meeting where he argued that a potential White House request would violate Section 7217 of the Internal Revenue Code. This law specifically prohibits the president, vice president, White House staff, and certain agency heads from directly or indirectly requesting that the IRS conduct or terminate an audit or investigation of any particular taxpayer.
Violations of this law can result in up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. IRS officials have long regarded this prohibition as a crucial safeguard against political interference that President Richard Nixon attempted to impose on the tax agency.
IRS employees who receive requests they believe are improper are required to report them to the agency’s inspector general or face the same consequences. It’s important to note that the 1998 law has not been tested in court, and enforcing it in the near term would require action from the Trump administration.
The specific White House requests that Kies objected to and whether the administration intends to follow through with them after his departure remain unclear. The taxpayers involved could be individuals, corporations, or nonprofit groups. Prior to joining the administration last year, Kies represented President Trump in private practice and has been recused from matters involving the president.
Some aides of President Trump expressed growing frustration with Kies, a senior Treasury official. During his tenure, Kies clashed with White House officials on several issues, including the taxation of income from fantasy sports. Notably, Kies frequently cited IRS rules about audits when asked about policies, even when officials weren’t specifically inquiring about particular companies or audits.
Kies declined to comment on the matter. Following a request for comment from The Wall Street Journal, several administration officials and Trump allies privately criticized Kies, accusing him of being difficult to work with and failing to adequately advance the president’s agenda.
In an interview, longtime Trump adviser Stephen Moore revealed that Treasury Department officials were particularly irritated with Kies’s handling of reversing rules related to taxing partnerships. Under Kies’s leadership, the Treasury Department reversed many Biden-era rules aimed at curbing tax-avoiding transactions, although not all of them.
Kies’s departure from the Treasury Department marks the latest instance of a senior Senate-confirmed official leaving the department after a relatively short tenure.
Kies, who is an assistant Treasury secretary and acting chief counsel of the Internal Revenue Service, will be leaving his positions in the coming weeks.
According to the people involved, Kies had occasional clashes with White House officials. One notable incident involved a recent meeting where he argued that a potential White House request would violate Section 7217 of the Internal Revenue Code. This law specifically prohibits the president, vice president, White House staff, and certain agency heads from directly or indirectly requesting that the IRS conduct or terminate an audit or investigation of any particular taxpayer.
Violations of this law can result in up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. IRS officials have long regarded this prohibition as a crucial safeguard against political interference that President Richard Nixon attempted to impose on the tax agency.
IRS employees who receive requests they believe are improper are required to report them to the agency’s inspector general or face the same consequences. It’s important to note that the 1998 law has not been tested in court, and enforcing it in the near term would require action from the Trump administration.
The specific White House requests that Kies objected to and whether the administration intends to follow through with them after his departure remain unclear. The taxpayers involved could be individuals, corporations, or nonprofit groups. Prior to joining the administration last year, Kies represented President Trump in private practice and has been recused from matters involving the president.
Some aides of President Trump expressed growing frustration with Kies, a senior Treasury official. During his tenure, Kies clashed with White House officials on several issues, including the taxation of income from fantasy sports. Notably, Kies frequently cited IRS rules about audits when asked about policies, even when officials weren’t specifically inquiring about particular companies or audits.
Kies declined to comment on the matter. Following a request for comment from The Wall Street Journal, several administration officials and Trump allies privately criticized Kies, accusing him of being difficult to work with and failing to adequately advance the president’s agenda.
In an interview, longtime Trump adviser Stephen Moore revealed that Treasury Department officials were particularly irritated with Kies’s handling of reversing rules related to taxing partnerships. Under Kies’s leadership, the Treasury Department reversed many Biden-era rules aimed at curbing tax-avoiding transactions, although not all of them.
Kies’s departure from the Treasury Department marks the latest instance of a senior Senate-confirmed official leaving the department after a relatively short tenure.
Judge Kathleen Williams
US District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Resister
July 14 - A federal judge ruled on Monday that President Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was an improper exercise in self-dealing and prohibited him from claiming that the extraordinary tax protections he received were part of a legitimate settlement agreement. In a 56-page order, Judge Kathleen M. Williams also referred the lawyer who brought Mr. Trump’s case against the IRS to the Florida bar for potential disciplinary proceedings. She stated she would forward her decision to the New York bar for its ongoing investigation of the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, who faces a Senate confirmation hearing this week.
Judge Williams, who presides in Federal District Court in Miami, did not explicitly nullify the deal Mr. Trump had with the government to receive amnesty from IRS investigations. However, her ruling criticized the negotiations between Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers and senior Justice Department officials as backroom dealings lacking a legitimate legal process. “The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the president,” the judge wrote.
This ruling is the latest instance of a federal judge criticizing the Trump administration for manipulating court procedures for the president’s benefit. Mr. Trump has often used the criminal justice system to target his perceived enemies. In this case, Judge Williams noted, he attempted to use the civil legal system for personal gain, which the law did not permit.
In January, Mr. Trump sued the IRS, blaming it for leaking his tax returns during his first term and demanding at least $10 billion in damages. Instead of defending the agency, the Justice Department reached a settlement agreement with two notable provisions. The first proposed a $1.8 billion fund to compensate Trump allies who claimed to be victims of government weaponization. This prospect sparked political controversy, and Mr. Blanche later stated the Justice Department would not proceed with the fund.
Mr. Blanche, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, also signed a separate order granting the president, his family, and their businesses unprecedented immunity from tax inquiries. He instructed the IRS to halt ongoing audits of the Trumps and not conduct new investigations of previously filed tax returns. This protection from audits, potentially very valuable for Mr. Trump, did not face significant political opposition from Republicans, and Mr. Blanche has said it will remain in place.
Under Judge Williams’s order, Mr. Trump and his family are barred from calling the audit protections a “settlement” in any official proceeding. However, it is unclear if this will prevent them from using it to avoid IRS scrutiny. An adverse ruling in just one IRS examination of Mr. Trump could have cost him over $100 million, according to The New York Times.
Experts have questioned whether Mr. Blanche had the authority to direct the IRS to stop audits, and Judge Williams stated that his directive violated a federal law preventing the White House from controlling IRS investigations. It is also uncertain if the IRS has implemented Mr. Blanche’s order, now nearly two months old.
In her ruling, Judge Williams directly criticized Mr. Blanche at a sensitive time, just days before his Senate confirmation hearing as attorney general. She expressed being “extremely troubled” by his May Senate testimony, where he claimed the settlement agreement had never been submitted to a court because the case had been dismissed and there was “no mechanism” for reviewing the agreement. “This answer is, at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous,” the judge wrote. “The court was available to review any pleading by any party at any time during this lawsuit.”
“Whether executive branch actors can privately agree to give themselves and their former clients blanket immunities and billions of dollars in tax moneys for legally undefined grievances was never an issue advanced to this court,” the judge wrote. “The question is whether the parties could do so by claiming to be adverse and engaging the legitimacy of a court proceeding. The answer is a resounding ‘no’: The lead plaintiff and the government are one, a fully realized unitary interest.”
Judge Williams, who presides in Federal District Court in Miami, did not explicitly nullify the deal Mr. Trump had with the government to receive amnesty from IRS investigations. However, her ruling criticized the negotiations between Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers and senior Justice Department officials as backroom dealings lacking a legitimate legal process. “The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the president,” the judge wrote.
This ruling is the latest instance of a federal judge criticizing the Trump administration for manipulating court procedures for the president’s benefit. Mr. Trump has often used the criminal justice system to target his perceived enemies. In this case, Judge Williams noted, he attempted to use the civil legal system for personal gain, which the law did not permit.
In January, Mr. Trump sued the IRS, blaming it for leaking his tax returns during his first term and demanding at least $10 billion in damages. Instead of defending the agency, the Justice Department reached a settlement agreement with two notable provisions. The first proposed a $1.8 billion fund to compensate Trump allies who claimed to be victims of government weaponization. This prospect sparked political controversy, and Mr. Blanche later stated the Justice Department would not proceed with the fund.
Mr. Blanche, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, also signed a separate order granting the president, his family, and their businesses unprecedented immunity from tax inquiries. He instructed the IRS to halt ongoing audits of the Trumps and not conduct new investigations of previously filed tax returns. This protection from audits, potentially very valuable for Mr. Trump, did not face significant political opposition from Republicans, and Mr. Blanche has said it will remain in place.
Under Judge Williams’s order, Mr. Trump and his family are barred from calling the audit protections a “settlement” in any official proceeding. However, it is unclear if this will prevent them from using it to avoid IRS scrutiny. An adverse ruling in just one IRS examination of Mr. Trump could have cost him over $100 million, according to The New York Times.
Experts have questioned whether Mr. Blanche had the authority to direct the IRS to stop audits, and Judge Williams stated that his directive violated a federal law preventing the White House from controlling IRS investigations. It is also uncertain if the IRS has implemented Mr. Blanche’s order, now nearly two months old.
In her ruling, Judge Williams directly criticized Mr. Blanche at a sensitive time, just days before his Senate confirmation hearing as attorney general. She expressed being “extremely troubled” by his May Senate testimony, where he claimed the settlement agreement had never been submitted to a court because the case had been dismissed and there was “no mechanism” for reviewing the agreement. “This answer is, at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous,” the judge wrote. “The court was available to review any pleading by any party at any time during this lawsuit.”
“Whether executive branch actors can privately agree to give themselves and their former clients blanket immunities and billions of dollars in tax moneys for legally undefined grievances was never an issue advanced to this court,” the judge wrote. “The question is whether the parties could do so by claiming to be adverse and engaging the legitimacy of a court proceeding. The answer is a resounding ‘no’: The lead plaintiff and the government are one, a fully realized unitary interest.”
ARCHIVES - Resisters
Email Us With Your Ideas and Feedback xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Send me periodic Email Reminders with the link to this website