This ARCHIVED page celebrates significant actions of courageous Resisters who refused to be intimidated by authoritarians and their henchmen by “obeying in advance.”
ARCHIVE
Qtr 2 - April 1 - June 30, 2025
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, sapien platea morbi dolor lacus nunc, nunc ullamcorper. Felis aliquet egestas vitae, nibh ante quis quis dolor sed mauris. Erat lectus sem ut lobortis, adipiscing ligula eleifend, sodales fringilla mattis dui nullam. Ac massa aliquet.
(Most Recent Action at the Top)
Elizabeth MacDonough
U.S. Senate Parliamentarian
Resister
June 23 - Elizabeth MacDonough, a quietly influential Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump’s legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington, despite not being elected and not casting votes.
Over the past week, MacDonough has significantly reduced the size of the President’s sweeping tax-and-spending package, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” She achieved this by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule called the Byrd Rule. This rule prohibits provisions deemed “extraneous” to the federal budget in legislation that Republicans are attempting to draft.
One of the main GOP provisions that MacDonough deemed unsuitable for the Byrd Rule was a measure to shift some of the costs of federal food aid onto states. This move forced Republicans to revisit their strategy and find the billions in savings that the provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to exclude noncitizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more challenging to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. She could issue additional guidance this week.
The series of rulings from MacDonough, an official appointed by the chamber’s leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump’s tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress.
The parliamentarian’s latest rulings present Republicans with a dilemma. They must either remove those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to retain them. This is an almost insurmountable task considering that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that certain provisions are irrelevant in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make significant changes to federal spending but is prohibited from substantively altering policy under Senate rules.
MacDonough’s rulings emerged after days of intense discussions between her office and Senate staff. These rulings highlight the often-overlooked influence of Senate procedure and the individual responsible for interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the inaugural female Senate parliamentarian, holds the position of Washington’s ultimate rules enforcer. Appointed in 2012, she has consistently struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills, regardless of the political affiliation of the administration.
Over the past week, MacDonough has significantly reduced the size of the President’s sweeping tax-and-spending package, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” She achieved this by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule called the Byrd Rule. This rule prohibits provisions deemed “extraneous” to the federal budget in legislation that Republicans are attempting to draft.
One of the main GOP provisions that MacDonough deemed unsuitable for the Byrd Rule was a measure to shift some of the costs of federal food aid onto states. This move forced Republicans to revisit their strategy and find the billions in savings that the provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to exclude noncitizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more challenging to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. She could issue additional guidance this week.
The series of rulings from MacDonough, an official appointed by the chamber’s leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump’s tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress.
The parliamentarian’s latest rulings present Republicans with a dilemma. They must either remove those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to retain them. This is an almost insurmountable task considering that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that certain provisions are irrelevant in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make significant changes to federal spending but is prohibited from substantively altering policy under Senate rules.
MacDonough’s rulings emerged after days of intense discussions between her office and Senate staff. These rulings highlight the often-overlooked influence of Senate procedure and the individual responsible for interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the inaugural female Senate parliamentarian, holds the position of Washington’s ultimate rules enforcer. Appointed in 2012, she has consistently struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills, regardless of the political affiliation of the administration.
Judge John McConnell Jr.
Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Resister
June 20 - A federal judge on Thursday blocked Donald Trump’s administration from forcing 20 Democratic-led states to cooperate with immigration enforcement in exchange for billions of dollars in transportation grant funding.
Chief US District Judge John McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, granted the states’ request for an injunction, barring the Department of Transportation’s policy. The judge ruled that the states were likely to succeed on the merits of some or all of their claims.
This ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. They argued that the administration was attempting to unlawfully hold federal funds hostage to coerce the states into adhering to Trump’s hardline immigration agenda.
The states contended that the US transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, lacked the authority to impose immigration-enforcement conditions on funding that Congress had appropriated to aid states in sustaining roads, highways, bridges, and other transportation projects.
In contrast, the justice department has filed a series of lawsuits against such jurisdictions, including Illinois, New York, and Colorado. These lawsuits challenge laws in those Democratic-led states that the department claims hinder federal immigration enforcement.
The states argue that the policy is improper and constitutes an unconstitutionally ambiguous condition on their ability to receive funding authorized by Congress. They point out that the policy leaves unclear what exactly would constitute adequate cooperation.
Chief US District Judge John McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, granted the states’ request for an injunction, barring the Department of Transportation’s policy. The judge ruled that the states were likely to succeed on the merits of some or all of their claims.
This ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. They argued that the administration was attempting to unlawfully hold federal funds hostage to coerce the states into adhering to Trump’s hardline immigration agenda.
The states contended that the US transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, lacked the authority to impose immigration-enforcement conditions on funding that Congress had appropriated to aid states in sustaining roads, highways, bridges, and other transportation projects.
In contrast, the justice department has filed a series of lawsuits against such jurisdictions, including Illinois, New York, and Colorado. These lawsuits challenge laws in those Democratic-led states that the department claims hinder federal immigration enforcement.
The states argue that the policy is improper and constitutes an unconstitutionally ambiguous condition on their ability to receive funding authorized by Congress. They point out that the policy leaves unclear what exactly would constitute adequate cooperation.
Dr. Fiona Havers
An Infectious Disease Physician and Medical Epidemiologist at the CDC
Resister
June 18 - In her 13-year tenure at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Fiona Havers played a pivotal role in crafting guidance for addressing the Zika virus, assisting China in responding to bird flu outbreaks, and guiding safe burial practices for Ebola victims in Liberia.
More recently, Dr. Havers held the esteemed position of a senior adviser on vaccine policy. She led a team that diligently compiled data on hospitalizations associated with COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus. Among the select group of scientists, federal officials, and advocates who study vaccination guidelines and timing, Dr. Havers is widely recognized as a prominent figure, embodying the CDC’s meticulous data-gathering operations.
On Monday, Dr. Havers made a significant decision by resigning from her position. Her resignation was prompted by her inability to continue her work while the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was dismantling the meticulous processes that contribute to the formulation of vaccination standards in the United States.
In an interview with The New York Times, Dr. Havers expressed her grave concerns, stating that if these actions were not halted and reversed promptly, a substantial number of Americans would succumb to vaccine-preventable diseases.
Dr. Havers, a 49-year-old scientist, highlighted the escalating attacks on federal vaccine policy by Mr. Kennedy. Three weeks ago, the health secretary delivered a concise video on X, announcing that the agency would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women.
Last week, Mr. Kennedy took further action by dismissing all 17 members of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). He made this decision without providing any concrete evidence to support his claim that the group was plagued by conflicts of interest. Mr. Kennedy asserted the need for a complete overhaul to restore public trust.
Following the dismissal of the ACIP, Mr. Kennedy appointed eight new members to the committee. Notably, at least half of these new members appear to share his antipathy towards vaccines. Two of these individuals have previously testified against vaccine manufacturers in clinical trials.
More recently, Dr. Havers held the esteemed position of a senior adviser on vaccine policy. She led a team that diligently compiled data on hospitalizations associated with COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus. Among the select group of scientists, federal officials, and advocates who study vaccination guidelines and timing, Dr. Havers is widely recognized as a prominent figure, embodying the CDC’s meticulous data-gathering operations.
On Monday, Dr. Havers made a significant decision by resigning from her position. Her resignation was prompted by her inability to continue her work while the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was dismantling the meticulous processes that contribute to the formulation of vaccination standards in the United States.
In an interview with The New York Times, Dr. Havers expressed her grave concerns, stating that if these actions were not halted and reversed promptly, a substantial number of Americans would succumb to vaccine-preventable diseases.
Dr. Havers, a 49-year-old scientist, highlighted the escalating attacks on federal vaccine policy by Mr. Kennedy. Three weeks ago, the health secretary delivered a concise video on X, announcing that the agency would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women.
Last week, Mr. Kennedy took further action by dismissing all 17 members of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). He made this decision without providing any concrete evidence to support his claim that the group was plagued by conflicts of interest. Mr. Kennedy asserted the need for a complete overhaul to restore public trust.
Following the dismissal of the ACIP, Mr. Kennedy appointed eight new members to the committee. Notably, at least half of these new members appear to share his antipathy towards vaccines. Two of these individuals have previously testified against vaccine manufacturers in clinical trials.
Judge Matthew J. Maddox
District Judge of the US District Court for the District of Maryland
Resister
June 14 - A federal judge in Maryland overturned President Trump’s decision to fire the three Democratic members of the five-member Consumer Product Safety Commission, which oversees the safety of products such as toys, cribs, and electronics.
In his ruling, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the Federal District Court in Maryland clarified that the law only permitted Mr. Trump to terminate the officials for “negligence of duty or malfeasance,” while Mr. Trump had falsely claimed to have fired them without cause.
Judge Maddox emphasized that the plaintiffs had diligently performed their duties and had never been accused of neglect of duty or malfeasance in office by either President Trump or President Biden.
This setback marks the latest challenge for Mr. Trump in his ongoing attempt to remove perceived political opponents from independent government agencies, which constitutes an assault on the counterweights to his authority. Notably, another federal judge recently ruled that Mr. Trump violated the law when he terminated Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent civil liberties watchdog.
In his ruling, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the Federal District Court in Maryland clarified that the law only permitted Mr. Trump to terminate the officials for “negligence of duty or malfeasance,” while Mr. Trump had falsely claimed to have fired them without cause.
Judge Maddox emphasized that the plaintiffs had diligently performed their duties and had never been accused of neglect of duty or malfeasance in office by either President Trump or President Biden.
This setback marks the latest challenge for Mr. Trump in his ongoing attempt to remove perceived political opponents from independent government agencies, which constitutes an assault on the counterweights to his authority. Notably, another federal judge recently ruled that Mr. Trump violated the law when he terminated Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent civil liberties watchdog.
Damian Williams
Attorney
Resister
June 9 - Paul Weiss, the esteemed law firm that pioneered the first deal with the Trump administration to avert a severe executive order, is losing one of its most prominent new hires—the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Damian Williams, who joined Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison in January, shortly after resigning as one of the nation’s top federal prosecutors, has accepted a position with Jenner & Block. This move, part of a series of high-profile departures, was announced by Jenner & Block, where Mr. Williams will serve as a co-head of the law firm’s litigation and white-collar practices.
In contrast to Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block chose to challenge an executive order intended to penalize the firm for employing an attorney who had investigated Mr. Trump. Last month, a federal judge invalidated that order, deeming it “doubly violative of the Constitution.”
As the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Mr. Williams, who is 44 years old, and his team secured numerous notable convictions, including in the fraud case against Sam Bankman-Fried, the former founder of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange. His office also achieved success in convicting former Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey on charges of public corruption.
The legal community is divided on how to respond to Mr. Trump’s executive orders, which he has used to punish his perceived adversaries by preventing them from conducting business before the federal government.
Jenner, who once employed Andrew Weissmann, a longtime deputy to Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Mr. Trump during his first term for possible links to Russia, chose to fight the president instead of reaching a deal. All four firms have successfully challenged the president’s orders, with federal judges striking them down.
Paul Weiss was the first of nine major law firms to make a deal with Mr. Trump, but it has been widely criticized for rushing to do so. The firm agreed to provide $40 million in free legal services to causes supported by Mr. Trump, which became a template for the other settlements.
Damian Williams, who joined Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison in January, shortly after resigning as one of the nation’s top federal prosecutors, has accepted a position with Jenner & Block. This move, part of a series of high-profile departures, was announced by Jenner & Block, where Mr. Williams will serve as a co-head of the law firm’s litigation and white-collar practices.
In contrast to Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block chose to challenge an executive order intended to penalize the firm for employing an attorney who had investigated Mr. Trump. Last month, a federal judge invalidated that order, deeming it “doubly violative of the Constitution.”
As the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Mr. Williams, who is 44 years old, and his team secured numerous notable convictions, including in the fraud case against Sam Bankman-Fried, the former founder of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange. His office also achieved success in convicting former Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey on charges of public corruption.
The legal community is divided on how to respond to Mr. Trump’s executive orders, which he has used to punish his perceived adversaries by preventing them from conducting business before the federal government.
Jenner, who once employed Andrew Weissmann, a longtime deputy to Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Mr. Trump during his first term for possible links to Russia, chose to fight the president instead of reaching a deal. All four firms have successfully challenged the president’s orders, with federal judges striking them down.
Paul Weiss was the first of nine major law firms to make a deal with Mr. Trump, but it has been widely criticized for rushing to do so. The firm agreed to provide $40 million in free legal services to causes supported by Mr. Trump, which became a template for the other settlements.
Judge Stephanie Gallagher
District Judge of the US District Court for the District of Maryland
Resister
June 4 - U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher for the District of Maryland criticized the Trump administration for its blatant disregard for her order earlier this month. The order required the administration to report the steps taken to bring back Cristian, who is reportedly 20 years old, as stated in court documents.
On May 6, Judge Gallagher reaffirmed her decision that the Trump administration must facilitate Cristian’s return.
Judge Gallagher, appointed by Trump in 2018, gave the Department of Justice until Monday to comply with her order.
Cristian was among approximately 300 men who were sent to the Salvadoran mega-prison CECOT. About 200 of these men were removed under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, an 18th-century wartime law. The remaining men, including Abrego Garcia, were removed under other immigration laws.
Cristian arrived in the United States as an unaccompanied minor and was part of a class action that prevented his removal from the country while his asylum case was pending in immigration court.
Similar to the Abrego Garcia case, the administration earlier claimed that it lacked the authority to compel the Salvadoran government to release Cristian. However, Judge Gallagher expressed her frustration with this argument on Friday.
In her order, Judge Gallagher stated that the defendants simply reiterated their familiar reasons for removing Cristian and failed to provide any of the information the court required.
It’s worth noting that the Trump administration is currently paying El Salvador up to $15 million to detain the removed immigrants from the United States.
Judge Gallagher further emphasized that Cristian’s presence in El Salvador is solely due to the United States sending him there through an agreement with the Salvadoran government. She highlighted that Cristian is a Venezuelan native and that his current situation is a result of the U.S. actions.
On May 6, Judge Gallagher reaffirmed her decision that the Trump administration must facilitate Cristian’s return.
Judge Gallagher, appointed by Trump in 2018, gave the Department of Justice until Monday to comply with her order.
Cristian was among approximately 300 men who were sent to the Salvadoran mega-prison CECOT. About 200 of these men were removed under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, an 18th-century wartime law. The remaining men, including Abrego Garcia, were removed under other immigration laws.
Cristian arrived in the United States as an unaccompanied minor and was part of a class action that prevented his removal from the country while his asylum case was pending in immigration court.
Similar to the Abrego Garcia case, the administration earlier claimed that it lacked the authority to compel the Salvadoran government to release Cristian. However, Judge Gallagher expressed her frustration with this argument on Friday.
In her order, Judge Gallagher stated that the defendants simply reiterated their familiar reasons for removing Cristian and failed to provide any of the information the court required.
It’s worth noting that the Trump administration is currently paying El Salvador up to $15 million to detain the removed immigrants from the United States.
Judge Gallagher further emphasized that Cristian’s presence in El Salvador is solely due to the United States sending him there through an agreement with the Salvadoran government. She highlighted that Cristian is a Venezuelan native and that his current situation is a result of the U.S. actions.
Judge Allison Burroughs
District Judge of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Resister
May 30 - A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students.
U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order, preventing the Trump administration from enforcing its action. The government had given the school a 30-day deadline to challenge the revocation of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification.
Burroughs intends to issue a preliminary injunction, which would prevent the Trump administration from proceeding without proper legal procedures. She emphasized the need for an order, stating that it doesn’t need to be overly restrictive but aims to maintain the status quo.
Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the government’s decision to revoke Harvard’s SEVP certification. The reason cited was Harvard’s alleged failure to comply with the administration’s requests for information. Noem further alleged that Harvard had collaborated with the Chinese Communist Party and failed to address antisemitism on campus.
If Harvard loses its SEVP certification, not only would the university be prohibited from accepting foreign students for the 2025-2026 academic year, but those already enrolled would also have to transfer or lose their legal status. International students currently constitute approximately a quarter of Harvard’s student body.
In a post on X on Thursday, Noem claimed that Harvard had demonstrated a pattern of “endangering its students and spreading American hate.”
The administration’s crackdown on Harvard follows a broader effort to suppress pro-Palestinian speech on campuses. This crackdown has resulted in the arrests of several international students for various non-criminal activities, including advocating for institutional divestment from Israel in an op-ed and having family ties to a former adviser for Hamas—violations of their First Amendment rights.
U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order, preventing the Trump administration from enforcing its action. The government had given the school a 30-day deadline to challenge the revocation of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification.
Burroughs intends to issue a preliminary injunction, which would prevent the Trump administration from proceeding without proper legal procedures. She emphasized the need for an order, stating that it doesn’t need to be overly restrictive but aims to maintain the status quo.
Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the government’s decision to revoke Harvard’s SEVP certification. The reason cited was Harvard’s alleged failure to comply with the administration’s requests for information. Noem further alleged that Harvard had collaborated with the Chinese Communist Party and failed to address antisemitism on campus.
If Harvard loses its SEVP certification, not only would the university be prohibited from accepting foreign students for the 2025-2026 academic year, but those already enrolled would also have to transfer or lose their legal status. International students currently constitute approximately a quarter of Harvard’s student body.
In a post on X on Thursday, Noem claimed that Harvard had demonstrated a pattern of “endangering its students and spreading American hate.”
The administration’s crackdown on Harvard follows a broader effort to suppress pro-Palestinian speech on campuses. This crackdown has resulted in the arrests of several international students for various non-criminal activities, including advocating for institutional divestment from Israel in an op-ed and having family ties to a former adviser for Hamas—violations of their First Amendment rights.
Court of International Trade
U.S. federal court that adjudicates civil actions arising out of U.S. customs and international trade laws
Resister
May 30 - The United States Court of International Trade (CIT), a federal court in Lower Manhattan, New York City, handles civil cases arising from U.S. customs and international trade laws. With broad jurisdiction over most trade-related matters, the CIT can hear and adjudicate cases originating within the United States or internationally.
On Wednesday, a federal three-judge panel ruled against several of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on international trading partners, finding that he had exceeded his authority.
In their judgment, the U.S. Court of International Trade judges stated that Trump’s tariffs lacked any identifiable limits. They further found that the decades-old International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a federal law that Trump cited in many of his executive orders, did not delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President.
This ruling effectively blocks most of the tariffs Trump has implemented during his second term, including the 10% rate applied to most trading partners and those on China. It also includes fentanyl-related levies on Canada and Mexico.
Democratic Attorney General Dan Rayfield of Oregon celebrated the ruling as a victory for working families and small businesses. He emphasized that President Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating. Rayfield stated that they triggered retaliatory measures, inflated prices on essential goods, and placed an unfair burden on American families, small businesses, and manufacturers.
On Wednesday, a federal three-judge panel ruled against several of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on international trading partners, finding that he had exceeded his authority.
In their judgment, the U.S. Court of International Trade judges stated that Trump’s tariffs lacked any identifiable limits. They further found that the decades-old International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a federal law that Trump cited in many of his executive orders, did not delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President.
This ruling effectively blocks most of the tariffs Trump has implemented during his second term, including the 10% rate applied to most trading partners and those on China. It also includes fentanyl-related levies on Canada and Mexico.
Democratic Attorney General Dan Rayfield of Oregon celebrated the ruling as a victory for working families and small businesses. He emphasized that President Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating. Rayfield stated that they triggered retaliatory measures, inflated prices on essential goods, and placed an unfair burden on American families, small businesses, and manufacturers.
Judge Richard Leon
District Judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Resister
May 29 - President Trump’s campaign of retribution against elite law firms that have resisted his efforts to subjugate them has not been successful so far.
On Tuesday, a judge struck down his executive order aimed at WilmerHale, one of several firms the president claims have wronged him or have worked for his political opponents. This decision is part of an unbroken string of victories for the handful of firms that have sued to stop him.
Judge Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the order was unconstitutional and must be completely invalidated. He also stated that Mr. Trump appeared determined to drive the firm to the bargaining table by imposing a comprehensive set of severe sanctions.
The ruling seemed to validate the strategy, embraced by a minority of firms, of fighting the administration instead of caving to a pressure campaign and making deals with Mr. Trump to avoid persecution. Judges have already rejected similarly punitive executive orders aimed at firms like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, and lawyers representing Susman Godfrey have asked a fourth judge to issue a final decision in their case.
Despite his decisive ruling, Judge Leon acknowledged that the firm had already suffered due to Mr. Trump’s actions. He noted that even though the president had temporarily blocked the order the day after signing it, existing clients had already begun “curtailing their relationships with WilmerHale,” and new clients were taking their business elsewhere.
In a 73-page opinion laced with over two dozen exclamation points, Judge Leon emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, regardless of their difficulty. He highlighted the founding fathers’ understanding of this principle and their efforts to enshrine certain rights in the Constitution that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Judge Leon concluded that it is no wonder that no executive order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted.
On Tuesday, a judge struck down his executive order aimed at WilmerHale, one of several firms the president claims have wronged him or have worked for his political opponents. This decision is part of an unbroken string of victories for the handful of firms that have sued to stop him.
Judge Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the order was unconstitutional and must be completely invalidated. He also stated that Mr. Trump appeared determined to drive the firm to the bargaining table by imposing a comprehensive set of severe sanctions.
The ruling seemed to validate the strategy, embraced by a minority of firms, of fighting the administration instead of caving to a pressure campaign and making deals with Mr. Trump to avoid persecution. Judges have already rejected similarly punitive executive orders aimed at firms like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block, and lawyers representing Susman Godfrey have asked a fourth judge to issue a final decision in their case.
Despite his decisive ruling, Judge Leon acknowledged that the firm had already suffered due to Mr. Trump’s actions. He noted that even though the president had temporarily blocked the order the day after signing it, existing clients had already begun “curtailing their relationships with WilmerHale,” and new clients were taking their business elsewhere.
In a 73-page opinion laced with over two dozen exclamation points, Judge Leon emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, regardless of their difficulty. He highlighted the founding fathers’ understanding of this principle and their efforts to enshrine certain rights in the Constitution that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Judge Leon concluded that it is no wonder that no executive order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted.
Judge Richard Myers
Chief District Judge of the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Resister
May 26 - After a six-month race, the North Carolina Supreme Court election is finally over. The rules of the game, as they were during the 2020 election, held, and the winner is now in office.
This victory is a testament to democracy. We owe this win in large part to an exceptionally strong ruling from Trump-appointed judge Richard E. Myers II, the chief judge of the Eastern District of North Carolina.
While other branches, such as Congress and the Executive, may be absent or ambivalent about following the Constitution, the federal judiciary remains steadfast in its commitment to upholding the law.
North Carolina is one of seven states that holds partisan elections for its judges. In the November 2024 election for one of North Carolina’s Supreme Court seats, Democrat Allison Riggs defeated Republican Jefferson Griffin by 734 votes out of 5,540,090 cast. Griffin challenged the results in court, as is his right.
Griffin’s challenges included attempts to retroactively challenge the state’s election laws and then use the new interpretation of the law to invalidate 60,000 presumptively valid votes. These efforts were rooted in election denial conspiracies.
Such an attempt violates two fundamental principles of how our elections are conducted: first, the rules of the game cannot be changed after the election has been held, and second, voters cannot be punished for following the rules as they were understood at the time.
These principles prevented Al Gore from invalidating 25,000 likely-Republican votes in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. They also ensure the finality of election results.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court surprised the election community by partially accepting Griffin’s post-election challenges. Their decision demonstrated their willingness to set a dangerous precedent of legitimizing false claims of voter fraud, particularly in close-margin races.
If the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision had been upheld and gained popularity in other state courts, we would have faced significant consequences for the 2026 elections. Elections would have drawn on for months.
(See May 6 Resister entry below)
This victory is a testament to democracy. We owe this win in large part to an exceptionally strong ruling from Trump-appointed judge Richard E. Myers II, the chief judge of the Eastern District of North Carolina.
While other branches, such as Congress and the Executive, may be absent or ambivalent about following the Constitution, the federal judiciary remains steadfast in its commitment to upholding the law.
North Carolina is one of seven states that holds partisan elections for its judges. In the November 2024 election for one of North Carolina’s Supreme Court seats, Democrat Allison Riggs defeated Republican Jefferson Griffin by 734 votes out of 5,540,090 cast. Griffin challenged the results in court, as is his right.
Griffin’s challenges included attempts to retroactively challenge the state’s election laws and then use the new interpretation of the law to invalidate 60,000 presumptively valid votes. These efforts were rooted in election denial conspiracies.
Such an attempt violates two fundamental principles of how our elections are conducted: first, the rules of the game cannot be changed after the election has been held, and second, voters cannot be punished for following the rules as they were understood at the time.
These principles prevented Al Gore from invalidating 25,000 likely-Republican votes in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. They also ensure the finality of election results.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court surprised the election community by partially accepting Griffin’s post-election challenges. Their decision demonstrated their willingness to set a dangerous precedent of legitimizing false claims of voter fraud, particularly in close-margin races.
If the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision had been upheld and gained popularity in other state courts, we would have faced significant consequences for the 2026 elections. Elections would have drawn on for months.
(See May 6 Resister entry below)
Senator Thom Tillis
US Senator from North Carolina
Resister
May 8 - President Trump nominated Ed Martin, a conservative Republican political operative from Missouri, to permanently lead the U.S. attorney’s office. However, his nomination has faced significant challenges due to his outspoken support for Jan. 6 rioters, a small but influential far-right group. Mr. Martin has used his authority to support Mr. Trump’s retribution campaign, threatening to investigate Democrats, academic institutions, and critics of Elon Musk while attempting to undermine the ongoing Jan. 6 inquiry.
Mr. Martin’s prospects took a major hit on Tuesday when Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced his opposition to the controversial nominee. Sen. Tillis stated that if Mr. Martin were being nominated for any district other than the one where the Jan. 6 protest occurred, he would likely support him. However, he emphasized that he would not support Mr. Martin’s nomination in the specific district.
This setback dealt a fatal blow to Mr. Martin’s path to confirmation, leaving the Senate Judiciary Committee in a deadlock with 11 votes in favor and 11 votes against him. All 10 Democrats opposed Mr. Martin’s nomination, and Republican leaders had stated that they would not force a vote on the floor.
On Thursday, after an internal debate in the West Wing, Mr. Trump withdrew his nomination, stating that he had found someone else who would be a great candidate.
Mr. Martin’s fall may signal a limit to Senate Republicans’ willingness to accept Trump nominees. Trump’s approval ratings among key demographics have declined, which has worsened the party’s prospects in the 2026 midterms. This could potentially loosen the grip of a president who is unlikely to return to the ticket.
Mr. Martin’s prospects took a major hit on Tuesday when Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced his opposition to the controversial nominee. Sen. Tillis stated that if Mr. Martin were being nominated for any district other than the one where the Jan. 6 protest occurred, he would likely support him. However, he emphasized that he would not support Mr. Martin’s nomination in the specific district.
This setback dealt a fatal blow to Mr. Martin’s path to confirmation, leaving the Senate Judiciary Committee in a deadlock with 11 votes in favor and 11 votes against him. All 10 Democrats opposed Mr. Martin’s nomination, and Republican leaders had stated that they would not force a vote on the floor.
On Thursday, after an internal debate in the West Wing, Mr. Trump withdrew his nomination, stating that he had found someone else who would be a great candidate.
Mr. Martin’s fall may signal a limit to Senate Republicans’ willingness to accept Trump nominees. Trump’s approval ratings among key demographics have declined, which has worsened the party’s prospects in the 2026 midterms. This could potentially loosen the grip of a president who is unlikely to return to the ticket.
Judge Richard Myers
Chief District Judge of the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Resister
May 6 - Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Myers issued an order on Monday, instructing North Carolina’s election board to refrain from invalidating any ballots cast by voters in the November election. This election was pivotal in determining the seat on the state’s Supreme Court, with a close race between a sitting Democratic justice and a Republican candidate. Judge Myers sided with Justice Allison Riggs, affirming that Judge Jefferson Griffin, the Republican candidate trailing the Democrat by 734 votes, cannot alter the established rules of the election after it has been conducted.
Judge Myers, appointed by Republican President Donald Trump during his first term, ruled following the North Carolina Supreme Court’s order issued on April 11. This order put potentially thousands of ballots cast by military and overseas voters at risk of being invalidated.
While the Republican-dominated North Carolina Supreme Court rejected Griffin’s request to invalidate over 60,000 ballots, it did allow a smaller group of overseas voters to have their eligibility verified within a 30-day period. However, Griffin argued that several thousand more voters should be affected by the ruling. Justice Riggs urged Judge Myers to prevent what she termed an unprecedented legal effort to overturn the election results.
Judge Myers explained that the case centered around the constitutionality of a state altering election rules after the fact and applying those changes retroactively to a select group of voters. He emphasized that this would result in treating those voters differently from other similarly situated individuals, which violates the voters’ equal protection and due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Concluding his analysis, Judge Myers stated that allowing the state supreme court’s ruling to take effect would violate these fundamental rights.
Judge Myers, appointed by Republican President Donald Trump during his first term, ruled following the North Carolina Supreme Court’s order issued on April 11. This order put potentially thousands of ballots cast by military and overseas voters at risk of being invalidated.
While the Republican-dominated North Carolina Supreme Court rejected Griffin’s request to invalidate over 60,000 ballots, it did allow a smaller group of overseas voters to have their eligibility verified within a 30-day period. However, Griffin argued that several thousand more voters should be affected by the ruling. Justice Riggs urged Judge Myers to prevent what she termed an unprecedented legal effort to overturn the election results.
Judge Myers explained that the case centered around the constitutionality of a state altering election rules after the fact and applying those changes retroactively to a select group of voters. He emphasized that this would result in treating those voters differently from other similarly situated individuals, which violates the voters’ equal protection and due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Concluding his analysis, Judge Myers stated that allowing the state supreme court’s ruling to take effect would violate these fundamental rights.
Judge Beryl Howell
District Judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Resister
May 5 - U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell for the District of Columbia delivered a landmark opinion on Friday regarding Donald Trump’s oppressive attempt to retaliate against the Perkins, Coie law firm. Judge Howell commenced the opinion by stating:
“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’…. When Shakespeare’s character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king … hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding ‘[a]way with him,’ referring to an educated clerk, who ‘can make obligations and write court hand’… Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.”
In a meticulous 102-page analysis, Howell systematically dissected Trump’s unconstitutional and tyrannical edict, successfully invalidating it in its entirety. Notably, she even invalidated Trump’s revocation of security clearances, a move that many experts considered highly unlikely, given the customary deference usually accorded to presidents in matters of national security.
“By its terms, this Order stigmatizes and penalizes a particular law firm and its employees—from its partners to its associate attorneys, secretaries, and mailroom attendants—due to the Firm’s representation, both in the past and currently, of clients pursuing claims and taking positions with which the current President disagrees, as well as the Firm’s own speech,” Howell explained. “In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’ [Executive Order] 14230 takes the approach of ‘Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,’ sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.”
She also criticized law firms that collapsed while praising those that stood up to Trump. She emphasized that only when lawyers choose to challenge government action raising significant constitutional issues can a case be brought to court for judicial review of its legal merits. This was the case in this instance, as demonstrated by plaintiff Perkins Coie LLP, plaintiff’s counsel Williams & Connolly, and the lawyers, firms, organizations, and individuals who submitted amicus briefs in the case.
On First and Fifth Amendment grounds, Judge Howell quashed one of the most cynical edicts ever issued by a U.S. president. She foiled his scheme to target lawyers for representing clients and advocating progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints. Notably, her ruling was on a summary judgment motion, meaning that the government lacked any facts that could lead to a decision upholding the order.
“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’…. When Shakespeare’s character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king … hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding ‘[a]way with him,’ referring to an educated clerk, who ‘can make obligations and write court hand’… Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.”
In a meticulous 102-page analysis, Howell systematically dissected Trump’s unconstitutional and tyrannical edict, successfully invalidating it in its entirety. Notably, she even invalidated Trump’s revocation of security clearances, a move that many experts considered highly unlikely, given the customary deference usually accorded to presidents in matters of national security.
“By its terms, this Order stigmatizes and penalizes a particular law firm and its employees—from its partners to its associate attorneys, secretaries, and mailroom attendants—due to the Firm’s representation, both in the past and currently, of clients pursuing claims and taking positions with which the current President disagrees, as well as the Firm’s own speech,” Howell explained. “In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers,’ [Executive Order] 14230 takes the approach of ‘Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,’ sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.”
She also criticized law firms that collapsed while praising those that stood up to Trump. She emphasized that only when lawyers choose to challenge government action raising significant constitutional issues can a case be brought to court for judicial review of its legal merits. This was the case in this instance, as demonstrated by plaintiff Perkins Coie LLP, plaintiff’s counsel Williams & Connolly, and the lawyers, firms, organizations, and individuals who submitted amicus briefs in the case.
On First and Fifth Amendment grounds, Judge Howell quashed one of the most cynical edicts ever issued by a U.S. president. She foiled his scheme to target lawyers for representing clients and advocating progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints. Notably, her ruling was on a summary judgment motion, meaning that the government lacked any facts that could lead to a decision upholding the order.
Professor David Salas-de la Cruz
Associate Professor of Chemistry at Rutgers University-Camden
Resister
Professor Paul Boxer
Psychology Professor at Rutgers University-Newark
Resister
May 3 - Late last month, Professor Salas-de la Cruz and Paul Boxer, a psychology professor at Rutgers University-Newark, drafted a one-page “mutual defense compact.” This compact was a unified statement of solidarity among 18 large, predominantly public universities in the Big Ten athletic and academic conference. Together, these universities enroll approximately 600,000 students annually. The compact declared that any infringement against one member university would be considered an infringement against all.
Participating schools were asked to commit to providing a “unified and vigorous response” when member universities faced direct political or legal infringement. For instance, faculty members might be required to offer legal services, strategic communication, or expert testimony.
The compact, now approved by faculty at over a dozen universities, lacks a commitment from school administrators to provide financial backing for a joint defense fund. This has led to criticisms from detractors who perceive the initiative as largely ineffective.
Despite these shortcomings, the Rutgers resolution and the professors’ efforts to mobilize a collective response reflect a shift in strategy. Professor Boxer emphasized the importance of higher education and expressed his opposition to a country where generative research is subjugated to federal control.
Participating schools were asked to commit to providing a “unified and vigorous response” when member universities faced direct political or legal infringement. For instance, faculty members might be required to offer legal services, strategic communication, or expert testimony.
The compact, now approved by faculty at over a dozen universities, lacks a commitment from school administrators to provide financial backing for a joint defense fund. This has led to criticisms from detractors who perceive the initiative as largely ineffective.
Despite these shortcomings, the Rutgers resolution and the professors’ efforts to mobilize a collective response reflect a shift in strategy. Professor Boxer emphasized the importance of higher education and expressed his opposition to a country where generative research is subjugated to federal control.
Lisa Murkowski
GOP Senator from Alaska
Resister (admirable only relative to the cowardice of her GOP Colleagues)
April 19 - Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) stands out among Republican Party members in 2025 who aren’t unwavering Donald Trump supporters. While she has criticized Trump and collaborated with colleagues to pass parts of his agenda during both his first and current terms, her record also includes criticizing things she votes for or helps pass, such as her infamous “present” vote on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Recently, Murkowski’s remarks to a crowd in Alaska went beyond typical gestures of Independent Thought. She openly admitted to fearing societal upheaval caused by Trump’s actions, including slashing federal services, defying court orders, and risking economic collapse through tariffs.
Murkowski emphasized the importance of using her voice despite the potential for retaliation. She then criticized colleagues who have ceded authority to the executive branch. She called Trump’s actions against congressionally authorized funds “illegal,” a point few Republican colleagues have acknowledged, except for Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Rand Paul (R-KY).
Murkowski explained Congress’ constitutional role in balancing power, stating, “We are not balancing as Congress.”
She expressed alarm at the judiciary’s increasing partisan treatment, fearing it erodes public trust in the rule of law. Murkowski urged Alaskans to protest programs they want to retain to keep elected leaders informed.
“It’s crucial to raise concerns rather than letting fatigue overwhelm us,” Murkowski said.
Recently, Murkowski’s remarks to a crowd in Alaska went beyond typical gestures of Independent Thought. She openly admitted to fearing societal upheaval caused by Trump’s actions, including slashing federal services, defying court orders, and risking economic collapse through tariffs.
Murkowski emphasized the importance of using her voice despite the potential for retaliation. She then criticized colleagues who have ceded authority to the executive branch. She called Trump’s actions against congressionally authorized funds “illegal,” a point few Republican colleagues have acknowledged, except for Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Rand Paul (R-KY).
Murkowski explained Congress’ constitutional role in balancing power, stating, “We are not balancing as Congress.”
She expressed alarm at the judiciary’s increasing partisan treatment, fearing it erodes public trust in the rule of law. Murkowski urged Alaskans to protest programs they want to retain to keep elected leaders informed.
“It’s crucial to raise concerns rather than letting fatigue overwhelm us,” Murkowski said.
European Union
Political and Economic Union of 27 European States
Resister
April 13 - In Europe, regulators are preparing to impose a substantial fine on X for violating the Digital Services Act, a new law designed to curb social media disinformation. According to the New York Times, the fine could exceed $1 billion, serving as a deterrent to other companies from violating the law.
The investigation into X’s actions commenced in 2023, and last year, regulators issued a preliminary ruling indicating that X had violated the law. However, the European Union and X remain open to reaching a settlement if the company agrees to implement changes that address regulators’ concerns.
Furthermore, X is currently facing a second European Union investigation that is more extensive and could result in additional penalties. In this investigation, EU officials are constructing a case against X’s hands-off approach to policing user-generated content, which has led to the emergence of a hub of illegal hate speech, disinformation, and other material that undermines democracy across the 27-nation bloc.
The investigation into X’s actions commenced in 2023, and last year, regulators issued a preliminary ruling indicating that X had violated the law. However, the European Union and X remain open to reaching a settlement if the company agrees to implement changes that address regulators’ concerns.
Furthermore, X is currently facing a second European Union investigation that is more extensive and could result in additional penalties. In this investigation, EU officials are constructing a case against X’s hands-off approach to policing user-generated content, which has led to the emergence of a hub of illegal hate speech, disinformation, and other material that undermines democracy across the 27-nation bloc.
Sussman Godfrey
A Top-Ranked US Law Firm
Resister
April 12 - As prominent law firms align themselves with President Donald Trump, Susman Godfrey is resolute in its resistance.
On Friday, the firm, which emerged victorious in a landmark $787 million lawsuit against Fox News for airing 2020 election conspiracies, filed a counterclaim against a Trump executive order it alleges was intended to retaliate.
Susman Godfrey emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law, stating that no administration should be permitted to penalize lawyers for simply performing their duties and safeguarding Americans’ constitutional rights to the legal process.
On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order that prohibited Susman Godfrey from securing federal contracts held by its clients, revoked the security clearances of its employees, and barred them from accessing federal buildings.
The firm’s complaint explicitly stated that Trump’s order was driven by unconstitutional retaliatory and discriminatory intent, aiming to punish Susman Godfrey for its efforts in defending the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.
Susman Godfrey underscored the broader implications of this attack, emphasizing that it could affect any firm or lawyer in the future. As officers of the court, they are duty-bound to confront this illegal executive order.
Since returning to office, Trump has been engaged in a relentless campaign of vindictiveness against law firms that have challenged him or his administration in any manner. He has issued a series of executive orders penalizing firms that employed his adversaries or engaged in work he opposes.
The president’s retaliatory actions have forced law firms to make a difficult choice: capitulate to his demands or stand up and fight back.
Susman Godfrey joined a select group of firms that have taken action against the president, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale. They collectively condemned Trump’s relentless barrage of executive orders, declaring them clearly unconstitutional.
On Friday, the firm, which emerged victorious in a landmark $787 million lawsuit against Fox News for airing 2020 election conspiracies, filed a counterclaim against a Trump executive order it alleges was intended to retaliate.
Susman Godfrey emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law, stating that no administration should be permitted to penalize lawyers for simply performing their duties and safeguarding Americans’ constitutional rights to the legal process.
On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order that prohibited Susman Godfrey from securing federal contracts held by its clients, revoked the security clearances of its employees, and barred them from accessing federal buildings.
The firm’s complaint explicitly stated that Trump’s order was driven by unconstitutional retaliatory and discriminatory intent, aiming to punish Susman Godfrey for its efforts in defending the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.
Susman Godfrey underscored the broader implications of this attack, emphasizing that it could affect any firm or lawyer in the future. As officers of the court, they are duty-bound to confront this illegal executive order.
Since returning to office, Trump has been engaged in a relentless campaign of vindictiveness against law firms that have challenged him or his administration in any manner. He has issued a series of executive orders penalizing firms that employed his adversaries or engaged in work he opposes.
The president’s retaliatory actions have forced law firms to make a difficult choice: capitulate to his demands or stand up and fight back.
Susman Godfrey joined a select group of firms that have taken action against the president, including Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale. They collectively condemned Trump’s relentless barrage of executive orders, declaring them clearly unconstitutional.
Associated Press
Acting Director of the Internal Revenue Service
Resister
April 11 - The Associated Press stood firm against authoritarian bullying, unlike Columbia University, big law firms, Jeff Bezos, ABC News, and most House and Senate Republicans. Instead of succumbing to exclusion from key White House venues and daily access to Donald Trump for referring to the Gulf of Mexico as “the Gulf of Mexico,” the AP took the Trump censoring regime to federal court. This week, they emerged victorious at the district court level.
Executive Editor Julie Pace explained the AP’s stance to the White House chief of staff, emphasizing that the White House’s actions were intended to punish the AP for its speech. Pace underscored the government’s inability to retaliate against the public or the press for their speech, citing the fundamental principles of the First Amendment.
Regrettably, the docile White House Press Correspondents’ Association continued its business as usual, accepting the White House’s unprecedented decision to select press members, including individuals with close relationships to the president who may be perceived as toadies or propagandists. Perhaps the organization should be renamed the Worthless Press Correspondents’ Association.
Defending the decision came at a significant financial cost for the AP. A judge explained that the AP’s wire reporters cannot be the first to break news because they cannot physically be present. Reporting through second-hand sources lacks the same level of completeness as firsthand reporting, as reporters cannot utilize their senses to craft unique messages or ask questions from outside a closed door.
The AP’s business model has suffered due to these delays. Customers have turned to other sources, and an advertiser canceled a $150,000 deal. Delays in capturing photos and details of breaking news can have catastrophic consequences.
Executive Editor Julie Pace explained the AP’s stance to the White House chief of staff, emphasizing that the White House’s actions were intended to punish the AP for its speech. Pace underscored the government’s inability to retaliate against the public or the press for their speech, citing the fundamental principles of the First Amendment.
Regrettably, the docile White House Press Correspondents’ Association continued its business as usual, accepting the White House’s unprecedented decision to select press members, including individuals with close relationships to the president who may be perceived as toadies or propagandists. Perhaps the organization should be renamed the Worthless Press Correspondents’ Association.
Defending the decision came at a significant financial cost for the AP. A judge explained that the AP’s wire reporters cannot be the first to break news because they cannot physically be present. Reporting through second-hand sources lacks the same level of completeness as firsthand reporting, as reporters cannot utilize their senses to craft unique messages or ask questions from outside a closed door.
The AP’s business model has suffered due to these delays. Customers have turned to other sources, and an advertiser canceled a $150,000 deal. Delays in capturing photos and details of breaking news can have catastrophic consequences.
Melanie Krause
Acting Director of the Internal Revenue Service
Resister
April 9 - Acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Krause plans to resign after being bypassed over a new agreement to share tax data of undocumented immigrants with Homeland Security personnel, according to two people familiar with the situation.
Krause, the tax agency’s third leader since President Trump’s inauguration, will participate in the deferred resignation program offered by the Trump administration. Disagreements over the agency’s direction also contributed to her decision.
Losing three agency leaders in three months is unprecedented, one person said. Treasury Department officials sought to circumvent IRS executives to access private taxpayer information, excluding Krause’s input.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem signed an agreement allowing the practice, despite IRS lawyers’ concerns about privacy law. Krause learned of the deal from Treasury Department representatives who released it to Fox News.
Krause also felt unable to push back on moves the U.S. DOGE Service was forcing through the tax agency, including staffing cuts, a technology infrastructure overhaul, and long-term priorities.
“She no longer feels she can impact decision-making,” a person familiar with the situation said. “She believes some decisions are irreversible.”
Several other top Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials, including the acting commissioner, are preparing to resign due to the Trump administration’s pressure on the agency to use protected tax records for homeland security deportations, as reported by sources.
Krause, the tax agency’s third leader since President Trump’s inauguration, will participate in the deferred resignation program offered by the Trump administration. Disagreements over the agency’s direction also contributed to her decision.
Losing three agency leaders in three months is unprecedented, one person said. Treasury Department officials sought to circumvent IRS executives to access private taxpayer information, excluding Krause’s input.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem signed an agreement allowing the practice, despite IRS lawyers’ concerns about privacy law. Krause learned of the deal from Treasury Department representatives who released it to Fox News.
Krause also felt unable to push back on moves the U.S. DOGE Service was forcing through the tax agency, including staffing cuts, a technology infrastructure overhaul, and long-term priorities.
“She no longer feels she can impact decision-making,” a person familiar with the situation said. “She believes some decisions are irreversible.”
Several other top Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials, including the acting commissioner, are preparing to resign due to the Trump administration’s pressure on the agency to use protected tax records for homeland security deportations, as reported by sources.
Christopher Eisgruber
President of Princeton University
Resister
April 7 - Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber refused to make concessions to the federal government in an interview with Bloomberg after news broke that the Trump administration had suspended dozens of the University’s research grants.
He emphasized the need to stand up for principles and refuse funding that constrains truth-seeking. Eisgruber also highlighted the danger of the 70-year partnership between American universities and the government.
Eisgruber criticized Columbia University’s capitulation to federal funding cuts, calling it the wrong way for an academic institution to think about its responsibilities.
Regarding the University’s next steps, Eisgruber said they would seek alternative funding sources if government funding decreased. He emphasized the importance of universities acting together in response to governmental funding cuts.
He emphasized the need to stand up for principles and refuse funding that constrains truth-seeking. Eisgruber also highlighted the danger of the 70-year partnership between American universities and the government.
Eisgruber criticized Columbia University’s capitulation to federal funding cuts, calling it the wrong way for an academic institution to think about its responsibilities.
Regarding the University’s next steps, Eisgruber said they would seek alternative funding sources if government funding decreased. He emphasized the importance of universities acting together in response to governmental funding cuts.
Judge James Boasberg
Chief District Judge for the District of Columbia
Resister
April 6 - When sentencing a Capitol rioter last year, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg received a barrage of insults from the defendant, a Proud Boys member. Despite the insults, Boasberg remained courteous and gave the defendant a six-year prison sentence, 15 months less than the requested amount. Later, he reduced the sentence by another year, over the Justice Department’s objections.
Boasberg’s measured style is evident in his immigration case, which has staked him against the Trump administration and sparked the president’s attacks on the judiciary. Since March 15, when he temporarily blocked the president from invoking wartime powers to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, Boasberg has faced constant attacks and calls for impeachment. The administration deported hundreds of alleged gang members, but it disputes defying court orders. Boasberg is considering holding Trump officials in contempt.
Despite Trump’s derogatory remarks, other judges have privately supported him. Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rebuked Trump for calling for Boasberg’s removal, but the president’s verbal attacks have intensified. Court staff have humorously noted the increased public scrutiny of Boasberg in recent weeks.
Trump portrays Boasberg as a leftist, likely due to Trump’s lack of knowledge about him.
Like many judges, Boasberg has handled ideologically charged cases since Trump’s first term. Trump supporters criticized him in 2021 for sentencing Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer who admitted to altering an email used to justify surveillance on Page.
A Justice Department team recommended a prison sentence, but Boasberg sentenced Clinesmith to probation and community service, citing the media’s impact.
Boasberg’s recent assignment to the Signal litigation caught Trump’s attention, and he declared on social media that the judge seemed to be focusing on the “Trump Cases.” However, he said it didn’t matter because it’s virtually impossible for him to get an honest ruling in D.C.
Boasberg’s measured style is evident in his immigration case, which has staked him against the Trump administration and sparked the president’s attacks on the judiciary. Since March 15, when he temporarily blocked the president from invoking wartime powers to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, Boasberg has faced constant attacks and calls for impeachment. The administration deported hundreds of alleged gang members, but it disputes defying court orders. Boasberg is considering holding Trump officials in contempt.
Despite Trump’s derogatory remarks, other judges have privately supported him. Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rebuked Trump for calling for Boasberg’s removal, but the president’s verbal attacks have intensified. Court staff have humorously noted the increased public scrutiny of Boasberg in recent weeks.
Trump portrays Boasberg as a leftist, likely due to Trump’s lack of knowledge about him.
Like many judges, Boasberg has handled ideologically charged cases since Trump’s first term. Trump supporters criticized him in 2021 for sentencing Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer who admitted to altering an email used to justify surveillance on Page.
A Justice Department team recommended a prison sentence, but Boasberg sentenced Clinesmith to probation and community service, citing the media’s impact.
Boasberg’s recent assignment to the Signal litigation caught Trump’s attention, and he declared on social media that the judge seemed to be focusing on the “Trump Cases.” However, he said it didn’t matter because it’s virtually impossible for him to get an honest ruling in D.C.
Jerry Nadler
US Representative from New York
Resister
April 5 - Jerry Nadler, the most senior Jewish member of the House of Representatives, accused Donald Trump of being a “would-be dictator” who exploits the fight against antisemitism to control top universities.
In an interview with the Guardian, Nadler criticized Trump for using genuine dangers confronting American Jews as a pretext to attack Columbia, Harvard, and other universities. He said Trump doesn’t care about antisemitism and that it’s just an expression of his authoritarianism.
Nadler’s statement came as the Trump administration intensifies its attack on Ivy League and other universities, suspending $210 million in research grants to Princeton University, reviewing $9 billion in federal contracts and grants to Harvard University, and reportedly threatening $500 million in federal funds to Brown University. The attacks follow the cancellation of $400 million in federal money to Columbia University and warnings to at least 60 other universities about similar punishment.
In his Guardian interview, Nadler emphasized the need for vigilance among American Jews against Trump’s rhetoric, warning that if he succeeds in restricting free speech on campuses, Jews will be among the most affected. He cited history as proof of this and added that Trump’s actions to fight antisemitism paradoxically make American Jews less safe.
Nadler said if Trump were sincere, he’d root out the antisemites he’s appointed to high government positions, including Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson, who amplified far-right lies about a Jewish businessman lynched in Georgia in 1915. He also pointed to Trump’s firing of civil rights investigators in the Education Department who curb anti-Jewish hate on campuses, saying if he were serious, Trump would bring cases to the Office of Civil Rights, not destroy it.
In an interview with the Guardian, Nadler criticized Trump for using genuine dangers confronting American Jews as a pretext to attack Columbia, Harvard, and other universities. He said Trump doesn’t care about antisemitism and that it’s just an expression of his authoritarianism.
Nadler’s statement came as the Trump administration intensifies its attack on Ivy League and other universities, suspending $210 million in research grants to Princeton University, reviewing $9 billion in federal contracts and grants to Harvard University, and reportedly threatening $500 million in federal funds to Brown University. The attacks follow the cancellation of $400 million in federal money to Columbia University and warnings to at least 60 other universities about similar punishment.
In his Guardian interview, Nadler emphasized the need for vigilance among American Jews against Trump’s rhetoric, warning that if he succeeds in restricting free speech on campuses, Jews will be among the most affected. He cited history as proof of this and added that Trump’s actions to fight antisemitism paradoxically make American Jews less safe.
Nadler said if Trump were sincere, he’d root out the antisemites he’s appointed to high government positions, including Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson, who amplified far-right lies about a Jewish businessman lynched in Georgia in 1915. He also pointed to Trump’s firing of civil rights investigators in the Education Department who curb anti-Jewish hate on campuses, saying if he were serious, Trump would bring cases to the Office of Civil Rights, not destroy it.
Eugene Robinson
Pulitzer Prize-winning Opinion Columnist
Resister
April 4 - Pulitzer Prize-winning opinion columnist Eugene Robinson resigned from The Washington Post on Thursday due to billionaire owner Jeff Bezos’ plan to shift the section’s focus to “free markets and personal liberties.” These traditionally conservative values indicate a rightward shift in the paper’s editorial stance.
In a memo shared with staffers, Robinson, who is 71 years old, expressed his decision to move on to a new chapter in his career. The New York Times reported on this development. Bezos had announced the change to the opinion page in February, which had sparked anger among his staff and Post alumni. This move has also led to another wave of subscribers canceling their subscriptions.
In a memo shared with staffers, Robinson, who is 71 years old, expressed his decision to move on to a new chapter in his career. The New York Times reported on this development. Bezos had announced the change to the opinion page in February, which had sparked anger among his staff and Post alumni. This move has also led to another wave of subscribers canceling their subscriptions.
Senator Corey Booker
U. S. Senator from New Jersey
Resister
April 2 - Senator Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, spent an entire day on the Senate floor, delivering an impassioned speech in protest against the Trump administration’s policies. His remarkable effort, which involved dozens of fellow Democrats, set a new record for the longest speech ever delivered in the chamber.
As Booker concluded his 25-hour, 4-minute speech, fellow Democrats erupted in cheers, wiping away tears and placing their hands over their hearts. Others were visibly moved, with some rushing to embrace the emotionally exhausted and passionate Booker.
Booker took the podium at 7 p.m. EDT on Monday, pledging to speak “until I am physically unable.”
“I’ve been receiving calls from people across my state and the nation, urging Congress to take action and address the urgency and crisis of the present moment,” Booker said in a video posted to social media beforehand. “Therefore, we all have a responsibility to do something different, to cause ‘good trouble,’ as [late Rep.] John Lewis said, and that includes me.”
Booker’s speech directly targeted President Trump, White House senior adviser Elon Musk, and policies he criticized for showing a complete disregard for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the well-being of the American people.
The speech concluded just after 8 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, with a heartfelt tribute to Lewis that ended with the words “let’s get in good trouble,” solidifying Booker’s place as the speaker who delivered the longest remarks ever in the Senate.
Booker’s speech officially surpassed the previous record set in 1957 by the notorious segregationist Strom Thurmond, who filibustered for an astonishing 24 hours and 18 minutes to oppose the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, his speech gained widespread attention online, with his TikTok live stream surpassing 350 million likes by the evening and his office’s YouTube livestream attracting over 115,000 viewers.
As Booker concluded his 25-hour, 4-minute speech, fellow Democrats erupted in cheers, wiping away tears and placing their hands over their hearts. Others were visibly moved, with some rushing to embrace the emotionally exhausted and passionate Booker.
Booker took the podium at 7 p.m. EDT on Monday, pledging to speak “until I am physically unable.”
“I’ve been receiving calls from people across my state and the nation, urging Congress to take action and address the urgency and crisis of the present moment,” Booker said in a video posted to social media beforehand. “Therefore, we all have a responsibility to do something different, to cause ‘good trouble,’ as [late Rep.] John Lewis said, and that includes me.”
Booker’s speech directly targeted President Trump, White House senior adviser Elon Musk, and policies he criticized for showing a complete disregard for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the well-being of the American people.
The speech concluded just after 8 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, with a heartfelt tribute to Lewis that ended with the words “let’s get in good trouble,” solidifying Booker’s place as the speaker who delivered the longest remarks ever in the Senate.
Booker’s speech officially surpassed the previous record set in 1957 by the notorious segregationist Strom Thurmond, who filibustered for an astonishing 24 hours and 18 minutes to oppose the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, his speech gained widespread attention online, with his TikTok live stream surpassing 350 million likes by the evening and his office’s YouTube livestream attracting over 115,000 viewers.
Email Us With Your Ideas and Feedback xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Send me periodic Email Reminders with the link to this website