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 1 - Jan 1 - Mar 31, 2026
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)
Judge Paul Friedman
District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Resister
Mar 25 - A federal judge ruled on Friday that the Pentagon’s restrictions on news outlets violate the First Amendment. Consequently, the judge issued an order that overturned parts of the Defense Department’s policy, granting a victory to The New York Times, which had filed a lawsuit in December over these restrictions.
Judge Paul Friedman, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, also ordered the Pentagon to restore the press passes of seven journalists affiliated with The Times. These journalists had surrendered their passes in October instead of signing the policy, which gave the Pentagon the authority to declare journalists “security risks” and revoke their press passes if they engaged in any conduct that the Pentagon deemed a threat to national security.
In his 40-page ruling, Judge Friedman criticized the Pentagon’s policy for rewarding reporters who were willing to publish only stories that aligned with or were spoon-fed by department leadership.
Judge Friedman sided with an argument presented by The Times, asserting that the Pentagon had given itself excessive power to enforce its new rules. He further stated that the policy violated journalists’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as it provided no clear guidelines for journalists on how to perform their jobs without risking the loss of their credentials.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has continued President Trump’s adversarial stance towards the news media. He initially proposed denying access to the Pentagon to a reporter from NBC News and later removed several news organizations from their on-site workstations. Months later, he restricted the unescorted roaming privileges of journalists within the complex.
A spokesperson for The Times expressed support for Judge Friedman’s ruling, stating that it reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue asking questions on behalf of the public. They emphasized the importance of transparency in government operations and the military’s actions, which are funded by taxpayers.
In response to the decision, Sean Parnell, the chief spokesman at the Pentagon, posted on X, stating their disagreement with the ruling and their intention to appeal it immediately.
The Pentagon policy, which took effect in October, faced criticism from numerous mainstream outlets for penalizing news-gathering methods that are protected by the First Amendment. Many journalists who had press passes to the Pentagon chose to surrender them rather than comply with the new policy. Consequently, the Defense Department welcomed a new set of credentialed media members, predominantly pro-Trump commentators or influencers.
Furthermore, the Pentagon’s policy mandated that journalists refrain from soliciting information from military employees unless the employees were authorized to speak on behalf of the Pentagon. The Times argued that this policy compelled the press to publish only official statements.
Judge Paul Friedman, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, also ordered the Pentagon to restore the press passes of seven journalists affiliated with The Times. These journalists had surrendered their passes in October instead of signing the policy, which gave the Pentagon the authority to declare journalists “security risks” and revoke their press passes if they engaged in any conduct that the Pentagon deemed a threat to national security.
In his 40-page ruling, Judge Friedman criticized the Pentagon’s policy for rewarding reporters who were willing to publish only stories that aligned with or were spoon-fed by department leadership.
Judge Friedman sided with an argument presented by The Times, asserting that the Pentagon had given itself excessive power to enforce its new rules. He further stated that the policy violated journalists’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as it provided no clear guidelines for journalists on how to perform their jobs without risking the loss of their credentials.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has continued President Trump’s adversarial stance towards the news media. He initially proposed denying access to the Pentagon to a reporter from NBC News and later removed several news organizations from their on-site workstations. Months later, he restricted the unescorted roaming privileges of journalists within the complex.
A spokesperson for The Times expressed support for Judge Friedman’s ruling, stating that it reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue asking questions on behalf of the public. They emphasized the importance of transparency in government operations and the military’s actions, which are funded by taxpayers.
In response to the decision, Sean Parnell, the chief spokesman at the Pentagon, posted on X, stating their disagreement with the ruling and their intention to appeal it immediately.
The Pentagon policy, which took effect in October, faced criticism from numerous mainstream outlets for penalizing news-gathering methods that are protected by the First Amendment. Many journalists who had press passes to the Pentagon chose to surrender them rather than comply with the new policy. Consequently, the Defense Department welcomed a new set of credentialed media members, predominantly pro-Trump commentators or influencers.
Furthermore, the Pentagon’s policy mandated that journalists refrain from soliciting information from military employees unless the employees were authorized to speak on behalf of the Pentagon. The Times argued that this policy compelled the press to publish only official statements.
Satya Nadella
CEO of Microsoft
Resister
Mar 11 - Is the era of corporate silence during the Trump administration over? On Tuesday, Microsoft made a significant move by filing a court brief in support of Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Pentagon. This decision marks a pivotal moment for one of the largest companies in the U.S., which is also a major government contractor.
For the past year, the unspoken rule in corporate America has been to avoid conflict with the White House. Many CEOs found the cost of speaking out, even when their interests were harmed, too high. However, on Tuesday, Microsoft decided that the cost of silence was even greater.
The company submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Anthropic’s lawsuit, urging a federal court to temporarily halt the Pentagon’s classification of the A.I. company as a supply chain risk. This is a remarkable action, considering Microsoft’s extensive ties with the U.S. government and its substantial federal contracts.
Microsoft stands to lose more from White House retaliation than almost any other Silicon Valley company. However, its deep integration within the U.S. government suggests that genuine retribution would be too costly.
Microsoft has significant interests in Anthropic’s success. It has committed $5 billion to Anthropic’s latest fundraising round. As part of this partnership, Anthropic agreed to purchase $30 billion worth of cloud services from Microsoft, marking Microsoft’s first major investment in a competitor to its long-time A.I. partner, OpenAI.
Background: Discussions between Anthropic and the Pentagon regarding restrictions on the government’s use of Claude A.I. tools for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weaponry ended last week. The administration then labeled Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for companies associated with foreign adversaries like Russia and China, and mandated that government contractors cease using its services in military operations.
According to Anthropic’s court filings, a Pentagon official stated the government intended to “make sure they pay a price.” Many in the tech community have supported Anthropic, with 37 engineers and researchers from OpenAI and Google, including Google’s chief scientist Jeff Dean, also filing a friend-of-the-court brief.
Microsoft’s action is a bold statement against the administration. CEO Satya Nadella has maintained a lower profile in President Trump’s circle compared to Nvidia’s Jensen Huang or Apple’s Tim Cook. Nadella’s approach has been more reserved: he did not attend Trump’s inauguration, unlike many other tech leaders, and he refused to dismiss Lisa Monaco, a former Biden official now serving as Microsoft’s president of global affairs, despite Trump’s demand for her removal.
For the past year, the unspoken rule in corporate America has been to avoid conflict with the White House. Many CEOs found the cost of speaking out, even when their interests were harmed, too high. However, on Tuesday, Microsoft decided that the cost of silence was even greater.
The company submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Anthropic’s lawsuit, urging a federal court to temporarily halt the Pentagon’s classification of the A.I. company as a supply chain risk. This is a remarkable action, considering Microsoft’s extensive ties with the U.S. government and its substantial federal contracts.
Microsoft stands to lose more from White House retaliation than almost any other Silicon Valley company. However, its deep integration within the U.S. government suggests that genuine retribution would be too costly.
Microsoft has significant interests in Anthropic’s success. It has committed $5 billion to Anthropic’s latest fundraising round. As part of this partnership, Anthropic agreed to purchase $30 billion worth of cloud services from Microsoft, marking Microsoft’s first major investment in a competitor to its long-time A.I. partner, OpenAI.
Background: Discussions between Anthropic and the Pentagon regarding restrictions on the government’s use of Claude A.I. tools for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weaponry ended last week. The administration then labeled Anthropic a supply chain risk, a designation typically reserved for companies associated with foreign adversaries like Russia and China, and mandated that government contractors cease using its services in military operations.
According to Anthropic’s court filings, a Pentagon official stated the government intended to “make sure they pay a price.” Many in the tech community have supported Anthropic, with 37 engineers and researchers from OpenAI and Google, including Google’s chief scientist Jeff Dean, also filing a friend-of-the-court brief.
Microsoft’s action is a bold statement against the administration. CEO Satya Nadella has maintained a lower profile in President Trump’s circle compared to Nvidia’s Jensen Huang or Apple’s Tim Cook. Nadella’s approach has been more reserved: he did not attend Trump’s inauguration, unlike many other tech leaders, and he refused to dismiss Lisa Monaco, a former Biden official now serving as Microsoft’s president of global affairs, despite Trump’s demand for her removal.
Judge Matthew Brann
Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Resister
Mar 10 - A federal judge has ejected the leaders of the U.S. attorney’s office in New Jersey, concluding that Attorney General Pam Bondi illegally appointed an unusual “triumvirate,” at President Donald Trump’s whim, to oversee the powerful federal prosecuting office.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann questioned why the outcome of numerous criminal prosecutions in the District might depend on the legitimacy of an unusual and complex leadership structure. He criticized the administration for trying to bypass Senate confirmation and alter long-standing precedents to align with the president’s desires. Brann, a conservative judge appointed by President Barack Obama, noted that President Trump and his aides have been frustrated by legal and constitutional limits on their power.
This ruling followed an earlier decision by Brann that the Trump administration had unlawfully kept Alina Habba, Trump’s former personal lawyer, as a U.S. attorney after her interim term ended. The decision exacerbates the dysfunction in an office responsible for significant criminal and civil litigation and complicates the Justice Department’s efforts to appoint top federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation or judicial approval.
Brann issued a stay on his decision, anticipating a quick appeal from the Department of Justice, but emphasized that a stay does not legitimize an unlawful appointment. He expressed distrust in Justice Department leaders, dismissing their arguments as a “rhetorical smokescreen.” Brann indicated he might dismiss indictments if the Justice Department continues with illegal appointments, risking the dismissal of cases or reversal of convictions. However, he left open the possibility for senior DOJ appointees to retrospectively approve decisions made by the current leadership.
Brann also mocked Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s claim that judges do not select U.S. Attorneys, a stance Blanche has taken while dismissing judicially appointed U.S. attorneys via social media. Brann pointed out that Article II of the Constitution allows judges to appoint inferior officers when authorized by Congress, which Congress has done for United States Attorneys in the circumstances the government acknowledges in these cases.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann questioned why the outcome of numerous criminal prosecutions in the District might depend on the legitimacy of an unusual and complex leadership structure. He criticized the administration for trying to bypass Senate confirmation and alter long-standing precedents to align with the president’s desires. Brann, a conservative judge appointed by President Barack Obama, noted that President Trump and his aides have been frustrated by legal and constitutional limits on their power.
This ruling followed an earlier decision by Brann that the Trump administration had unlawfully kept Alina Habba, Trump’s former personal lawyer, as a U.S. attorney after her interim term ended. The decision exacerbates the dysfunction in an office responsible for significant criminal and civil litigation and complicates the Justice Department’s efforts to appoint top federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation or judicial approval.
Brann issued a stay on his decision, anticipating a quick appeal from the Department of Justice, but emphasized that a stay does not legitimize an unlawful appointment. He expressed distrust in Justice Department leaders, dismissing their arguments as a “rhetorical smokescreen.” Brann indicated he might dismiss indictments if the Justice Department continues with illegal appointments, risking the dismissal of cases or reversal of convictions. However, he left open the possibility for senior DOJ appointees to retrospectively approve decisions made by the current leadership.
Brann also mocked Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s claim that judges do not select U.S. Attorneys, a stance Blanche has taken while dismissing judicially appointed U.S. attorneys via social media. Brann pointed out that Article II of the Constitution allows judges to appoint inferior officers when authorized by Congress, which Congress has done for United States Attorneys in the circumstances the government acknowledges in these cases.
Judge Mark E. Walker
Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Resister
Mar 5 - A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Florida’s decision to label the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a prominent Muslim advocacy and civil rights group, as a foreign terrorist organization was unconstitutional. Judge Mark E. Walker of the Federal District Court in Tallahassee stated that Governor Ron DeSantis’s attempt to block government benefits to CAIR or anyone supporting it violated the First Amendment rights to free speech, petition, and association.
Judge Walker criticized the governor for using his executive office to make a political statement at the expense of others’ constitutional rights, a stance he has often taken against the DeSantis administration. He issued a preliminary injunction for CAIR after DeSantis, a Republican, signed an executive order in December declaring CAIR a terrorist group. CAIR filed a federal lawsuit a week later.
DeSantis’s action followed Texas, which made a similar declaration in November, although Florida’s order did not prevent CAIR from purchasing land in the state, unlike Texas. Judge Walker noted that CAIR’s free speech rights were violated when an audio production company withdrew from a podcast agreement with the organization due to DeSantis’s order.
In a joint statement, CAIR’s litigation director and general counselor, Lena Masri, and CAIR Florida’s executive director, Hiba Rahim, emphasized that no governor has the right to unilaterally declare an American organization a terrorist group and punish them without due process.
DeSantis’s office did not immediately comment. While the governor has broad authority to issue executive orders, Walker argued that the order against CAIR exceeded these powers, lacking substantive explanation, legislative involvement, and a judicial review mechanism.
State lawmakers, currently in session until next week, have proposed bills to establish a process for designating groups as terrorist organizations. The American Civil Liberties Union has described the legislation as “sweeping” and warned it could infringe on First Amendment rights.
Judge Walker criticized the governor for using his executive office to make a political statement at the expense of others’ constitutional rights, a stance he has often taken against the DeSantis administration. He issued a preliminary injunction for CAIR after DeSantis, a Republican, signed an executive order in December declaring CAIR a terrorist group. CAIR filed a federal lawsuit a week later.
DeSantis’s action followed Texas, which made a similar declaration in November, although Florida’s order did not prevent CAIR from purchasing land in the state, unlike Texas. Judge Walker noted that CAIR’s free speech rights were violated when an audio production company withdrew from a podcast agreement with the organization due to DeSantis’s order.
In a joint statement, CAIR’s litigation director and general counselor, Lena Masri, and CAIR Florida’s executive director, Hiba Rahim, emphasized that no governor has the right to unilaterally declare an American organization a terrorist group and punish them without due process.
DeSantis’s office did not immediately comment. While the governor has broad authority to issue executive orders, Walker argued that the order against CAIR exceeded these powers, lacking substantive explanation, legislative involvement, and a judicial review mechanism.
State lawmakers, currently in session until next week, have proposed bills to establish a process for designating groups as terrorist organizations. The American Civil Liberties Union has described the legislation as “sweeping” and warned it could infringe on First Amendment rights.
Judge Patrick Schiltz
Chief Judge of the US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Resister
Mar 1 - The chief federal judge in Minnesota accused federal officials of persistently disregarding judicial orders related to immigration enforcement and then misrepresenting the extent of their violations.
Judge Patrick Schiltz issued a scathing order on Thursday, threatening to hold government officials in criminal contempt if the pattern persisted. He emphasized that “one way or another, ICE will comply with this court’s orders.”
Judge Schiltz, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, expressed surprise that the court had had to repeatedly threaten contempt to compel the United States government to comply with court orders. He highlighted that this was an unprecedented occurrence in the history of the United States.
In recent weeks, federal judges across the country have repeatedly criticized Trump administration officials for testifying dishonestly, misrepresenting the law, and failing to promptly comply with their orders, particularly in matters related to immigration. Tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration have been particularly acute in Minnesota, where the courts have been inundated with lawsuits stemming from a crackdown on illegal immigration.
On Thursday, Judge Schiltz identified 210 orders issued in 143 cases in Minnesota where he alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials had not adhered to court orders. He noted that federal officials had previously contested his characterization of their compliance with orders.
In his opinion, Judge Schiltz quoted from an email he received from Daniel N. Rosen, the state’s top federal prosecutor. The email acknowledged some missteps but argued that the judge had exaggerated their scope.
Judge Schiltz acknowledged in his ruling that federal officials had not disobeyed orders in some cases he had previously cited. However, he also noted dozens of additional instances where the government had not complied with a judge’s instructions. Among the errors were missing deadlines for releasing detainees, transferring a detainee to Texas against a judge’s order, and failing to file required updates with the court.
In the email that Judge Schiltz quoted from, sent on February 9, Mr. Rosen expressed his commitment to “redoubling our efforts to achieve compliance.” However, he also complained that the lawyers in his civil division did not deserve to be criticized by the judge in the way they were.
On Thursday, Judge Schiltz questioned the sincerity of Mr. Rosen’s promise to improve. He wrote, “This, too, appears to be untrue,” and noted that the government had continued to fail to comply with orders.
Judge Schiltz also expressed some sympathy for lawyers in the U.S. attorney’s office. He acknowledged that judges had been patient with them, recognizing that they had been put in an impossible position by Rosen and his superiors in the Department of Justice.
Judge Schiltz, who had clerked for Justice Antonin G. Scalia decades ago, had recently shown signs of growing frustration and anger with the Trump administration. He emerged as an unexpected critic of the administration’s tactics in court. A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security referred to the concerns expressed in one of his previous orders as a “diatribe from this activist judge.”
Judge Patrick Schiltz issued a scathing order on Thursday, threatening to hold government officials in criminal contempt if the pattern persisted. He emphasized that “one way or another, ICE will comply with this court’s orders.”
Judge Schiltz, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, expressed surprise that the court had had to repeatedly threaten contempt to compel the United States government to comply with court orders. He highlighted that this was an unprecedented occurrence in the history of the United States.
In recent weeks, federal judges across the country have repeatedly criticized Trump administration officials for testifying dishonestly, misrepresenting the law, and failing to promptly comply with their orders, particularly in matters related to immigration. Tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration have been particularly acute in Minnesota, where the courts have been inundated with lawsuits stemming from a crackdown on illegal immigration.
On Thursday, Judge Schiltz identified 210 orders issued in 143 cases in Minnesota where he alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials had not adhered to court orders. He noted that federal officials had previously contested his characterization of their compliance with orders.
In his opinion, Judge Schiltz quoted from an email he received from Daniel N. Rosen, the state’s top federal prosecutor. The email acknowledged some missteps but argued that the judge had exaggerated their scope.
Judge Schiltz acknowledged in his ruling that federal officials had not disobeyed orders in some cases he had previously cited. However, he also noted dozens of additional instances where the government had not complied with a judge’s instructions. Among the errors were missing deadlines for releasing detainees, transferring a detainee to Texas against a judge’s order, and failing to file required updates with the court.
In the email that Judge Schiltz quoted from, sent on February 9, Mr. Rosen expressed his commitment to “redoubling our efforts to achieve compliance.” However, he also complained that the lawyers in his civil division did not deserve to be criticized by the judge in the way they were.
On Thursday, Judge Schiltz questioned the sincerity of Mr. Rosen’s promise to improve. He wrote, “This, too, appears to be untrue,” and noted that the government had continued to fail to comply with orders.
Judge Schiltz also expressed some sympathy for lawyers in the U.S. attorney’s office. He acknowledged that judges had been patient with them, recognizing that they had been put in an impossible position by Rosen and his superiors in the Department of Justice.
Judge Schiltz, who had clerked for Justice Antonin G. Scalia decades ago, had recently shown signs of growing frustration and anger with the Trump administration. He emerged as an unexpected critic of the administration’s tactics in court. A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security referred to the concerns expressed in one of his previous orders as a “diatribe from this activist judge.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch
U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Resister
Feb 24 - Beneath the surface of the Supreme Court’s tariff decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed his dissatisfaction with his colleagues.
In a solo opinion, Gorsuch criticized his fellow justices for their inconsistent application of a contentious legal doctrine in decisions invalidating former President Obama’s environmental regulations, former President Biden’s student debt relief, and now, President Trump’s tariffs.
The liberal justices believe that Gorsuch fabricated the doctrine out of thin air. Three of Gorsuch’s fellow conservatives sought to carve out exceptions, while another argues that Gorsuch’s stance oversimplifies the matter.
Gorsuch maintains that only he and Chief Justice John Roberts have adhered to the established course of action.
Gorsuch expressed his surprise at the situation, stating that each side deserves an examination.
The central issue revolves around the “major questions doctrine.” This doctrine asserts that the president must demonstrate clear authorization when asserting that Congress has delegated extraordinary power to the executive branch.
New Civil Liberties Alliance senior counsel Andrew Morris, who represents businesses challenging Trump’s tariffs, emphasized the significance of the court’s opinion regarding the major questions doctrine.
Gorsuch and his colleagues invoked the doctrine to reject Trump’s sweeping assertion of his tariff authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This decision significantly impacted the president’s economic agenda.
Gorsuch’s opinion, spanning 46 pages, argues that Congress did not unequivocally surrender the sweeping tariff power sought by the President. However, he acknowledges that not everyone shares this perspective.
Gorsuch’s opinion is believed to explain why the tariffs decision was delayed. In 2021, the court ruled that the Biden administration lacked the authority to issue a nationwide eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following year, the court ruled that the Clean Air Act did not authorize Obama’s broad actions aimed at curbing carbon emissions. The court referenced the doctrine again in 2023 when it struck down Biden’s effort to unilaterally cancel approximately $430 billion in student debt.
This repeated use of the doctrine has led many Democrats to view it as a backdoor mechanism for judges to invalidate policies they disagree with.
Now, with the shoe on the other foot, Gorsuch found himself at a different divide with his fellow conservatives. Justice Amy Coney Barrett interpreted Gorsuch’s dissent as friendly fire. She believed that Gorsuch was attempting to “soften the blow” of the doctrine by suggesting that it is merely a commonsense principle.
Among the dissenters—Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—Gorsuch acknowledged their acceptance of the doctrine but criticized them for their willingness to carve out exceptions.
Kavanaugh and Alito argued that the doctrine should not apply to foreign affairs, where the president has more authority. Thomas, on the other hand, believed that the doctrine should only protect deprivations of life, liberty, or property.
Gorsuch specifically criticized Thomas’s solo dissent, where he suggested that Congress may “hand over” most of its powers, including the tariff power, to Trump without limit. “Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Congress can delegate its tariff powers to the President as comprehensively as Justice Thomas proposes,” Gorsuch wrote. “Even in that scenario, the question remains whether Congress has granted the President the tariff authority he asserts in this case — or whether the President is attempting to exploit ambiguous statutory language to enhance his own power.”
In delivering a scathing critique to his fellow justices, Gorsuch also aimed to invigorate Congress. The opinion serves as a rallying cry for legislators whom he suggests have ceded too much power to the executive branch.
In a solo opinion, Gorsuch criticized his fellow justices for their inconsistent application of a contentious legal doctrine in decisions invalidating former President Obama’s environmental regulations, former President Biden’s student debt relief, and now, President Trump’s tariffs.
The liberal justices believe that Gorsuch fabricated the doctrine out of thin air. Three of Gorsuch’s fellow conservatives sought to carve out exceptions, while another argues that Gorsuch’s stance oversimplifies the matter.
Gorsuch maintains that only he and Chief Justice John Roberts have adhered to the established course of action.
Gorsuch expressed his surprise at the situation, stating that each side deserves an examination.
The central issue revolves around the “major questions doctrine.” This doctrine asserts that the president must demonstrate clear authorization when asserting that Congress has delegated extraordinary power to the executive branch.
New Civil Liberties Alliance senior counsel Andrew Morris, who represents businesses challenging Trump’s tariffs, emphasized the significance of the court’s opinion regarding the major questions doctrine.
Gorsuch and his colleagues invoked the doctrine to reject Trump’s sweeping assertion of his tariff authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This decision significantly impacted the president’s economic agenda.
Gorsuch’s opinion, spanning 46 pages, argues that Congress did not unequivocally surrender the sweeping tariff power sought by the President. However, he acknowledges that not everyone shares this perspective.
Gorsuch’s opinion is believed to explain why the tariffs decision was delayed. In 2021, the court ruled that the Biden administration lacked the authority to issue a nationwide eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following year, the court ruled that the Clean Air Act did not authorize Obama’s broad actions aimed at curbing carbon emissions. The court referenced the doctrine again in 2023 when it struck down Biden’s effort to unilaterally cancel approximately $430 billion in student debt.
This repeated use of the doctrine has led many Democrats to view it as a backdoor mechanism for judges to invalidate policies they disagree with.
Now, with the shoe on the other foot, Gorsuch found himself at a different divide with his fellow conservatives. Justice Amy Coney Barrett interpreted Gorsuch’s dissent as friendly fire. She believed that Gorsuch was attempting to “soften the blow” of the doctrine by suggesting that it is merely a commonsense principle.
Among the dissenters—Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—Gorsuch acknowledged their acceptance of the doctrine but criticized them for their willingness to carve out exceptions.
Kavanaugh and Alito argued that the doctrine should not apply to foreign affairs, where the president has more authority. Thomas, on the other hand, believed that the doctrine should only protect deprivations of life, liberty, or property.
Gorsuch specifically criticized Thomas’s solo dissent, where he suggested that Congress may “hand over” most of its powers, including the tariff power, to Trump without limit. “Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Congress can delegate its tariff powers to the President as comprehensively as Justice Thomas proposes,” Gorsuch wrote. “Even in that scenario, the question remains whether Congress has granted the President the tariff authority he asserts in this case — or whether the President is attempting to exploit ambiguous statutory language to enhance his own power.”
In delivering a scathing critique to his fellow justices, Gorsuch also aimed to invigorate Congress. The opinion serves as a rallying cry for legislators whom he suggests have ceded too much power to the executive branch.
Mitch McConnell
U.S. Senator from North Carolina
Resister
Feb 21 - Senator Mitch McConnell seems to be delaying the voting bill supported by President Trump, causing dissatisfaction among fellow Republicans. McConnell, who chairs the Senate Rules Committee, is refusing to schedule a vote on the bill, halting its progress. The legislation aims to impose voting restrictions by mandating specific forms of ID for Americans to exercise their constitutional right.
This move by the retiring senator and former majority leader has angered his colleagues. Representative Tim Burchett posted a video on X Friday, suggesting McConnell’s actions stem partly from “meanness” due to his dislike for Trump, and questioned his mental sharpness.
“He’s blocking the SAVE Act, or is he? Is it him or a staff member, because as you know, he’s a lot like Joe Biden was in his last few days in office, or last years in office,” Burchett said. “His cognizant level is diminishing daily.”
Burchett further discussed how much of Congress is influenced by staffers because some aging members have declining mental capacity, citing Representative Kay Granger, the former House Appropriations Committee chair who disappeared for months in 2024 and was later found living in an independent living facility.
Representative Anna Paulina Luna also attacked McConnell, claiming on X without evidence that “over 84% of Americans and 95% of Republicans want voter ID. Why do you completely disregard the will of the people who voted for you?”
McConnell’s position has also caught the attention of right-wing social media personalities who have been calling out his mental acuity for days regarding the bill, which lacks the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster. Representative Andy Barr, who is running for McConnell’s seat in November, wrote a letter to the senator last week seeking his assistance to pass the bill, but McConnell hasn’t responded.
Last year, McConnell wrote in The Wall Street Journal that such a bill could enable a future Democratic president and Congress to “use more sweeping mandates to carry out a complete federal takeover of American elections.”
This move by the retiring senator and former majority leader has angered his colleagues. Representative Tim Burchett posted a video on X Friday, suggesting McConnell’s actions stem partly from “meanness” due to his dislike for Trump, and questioned his mental sharpness.
“He’s blocking the SAVE Act, or is he? Is it him or a staff member, because as you know, he’s a lot like Joe Biden was in his last few days in office, or last years in office,” Burchett said. “His cognizant level is diminishing daily.”
Burchett further discussed how much of Congress is influenced by staffers because some aging members have declining mental capacity, citing Representative Kay Granger, the former House Appropriations Committee chair who disappeared for months in 2024 and was later found living in an independent living facility.
Representative Anna Paulina Luna also attacked McConnell, claiming on X without evidence that “over 84% of Americans and 95% of Republicans want voter ID. Why do you completely disregard the will of the people who voted for you?”
McConnell’s position has also caught the attention of right-wing social media personalities who have been calling out his mental acuity for days regarding the bill, which lacks the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster. Representative Andy Barr, who is running for McConnell’s seat in November, wrote a letter to the senator last week seeking his assistance to pass the bill, but McConnell hasn’t responded.
Last year, McConnell wrote in The Wall Street Journal that such a bill could enable a future Democratic president and Congress to “use more sweeping mandates to carry out a complete federal takeover of American elections.”
Thom Tillis
U.S. Senator from North Carolina
Resister
Feb 16 - Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) stated on Sunday that he will not support Kevin Warsh, President Trump’s nominee for Federal Reserve chair, until the Department of Justice (DOJ) finishes its investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. “I’ve made it clear that I won’t support any confirmation of any Fed board member, chair, or otherwise until this is resolved,” Tillis told Ed O’Keefe on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”
Tillis, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has often criticized the DOJ’s investigation into Powell regarding the renovation costs of two Fed buildings in Washington, D.C. When the DOJ began its inquiry into the central bank last month, Tillis declared he would oppose any of Trump’s Fed nominees until the investigation ended, citing concerns about the central bank’s independence.
Last month, Trump announced Warsh as his nominee to succeed Powell, whose term ends in May. The president has frequently criticized Powell, whom he nominated during his first term, for not supporting an earlier or larger rate cut. After Warsh’s nomination, Tillis posted on social media that the former Fed governor is “a qualified nominee with a deep understanding of monetary policy.” However, he reiterated that his stance “has not changed: I will oppose the confirmation of any Federal Reserve nominee, including for the position of Chairman, until the DOJ’s inquiry into Chairman Powell is fully and transparently resolved.”
On Sunday, Tillis insisted he would not allow progress on Warsh’s nomination until the probe concludes. He also criticized U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, who initiated the case against Powell. “I think we had a young U.S. attorney with a dream trying to get the president’s attention, not even consulting with the administration and big DOJ on something that maybe they thought they’d get brownie points for. It’s not cute,” Tillis said of Pirro.
Tillis, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has often criticized the DOJ’s investigation into Powell regarding the renovation costs of two Fed buildings in Washington, D.C. When the DOJ began its inquiry into the central bank last month, Tillis declared he would oppose any of Trump’s Fed nominees until the investigation ended, citing concerns about the central bank’s independence.
Last month, Trump announced Warsh as his nominee to succeed Powell, whose term ends in May. The president has frequently criticized Powell, whom he nominated during his first term, for not supporting an earlier or larger rate cut. After Warsh’s nomination, Tillis posted on social media that the former Fed governor is “a qualified nominee with a deep understanding of monetary policy.” However, he reiterated that his stance “has not changed: I will oppose the confirmation of any Federal Reserve nominee, including for the position of Chairman, until the DOJ’s inquiry into Chairman Powell is fully and transparently resolved.”
On Sunday, Tillis insisted he would not allow progress on Warsh’s nomination until the probe concludes. He also criticized U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, who initiated the case against Powell. “I think we had a young U.S. attorney with a dream trying to get the president’s attention, not even consulting with the administration and big DOJ on something that maybe they thought they’d get brownie points for. It’s not cute,” Tillis said of Pirro.
Renée Nicole Macklin Good
37-year-old American woman residing Minneapolis
Resister
Alex Jeffrey Pretti
37-year-old American intensive care nurse for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Resister
Feb 7 - On January 7, 2026, Renée Nicole Macklin Good, a 37-year-old American woman, was fatally shot in Minneapolis, Minnesota, by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross. Good was stopped sideways in her car when Ross approached her from behind and then walked around her vehicle. Other agents arrived and ordered her to get out of the car while reaching through her open window. Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward and to the right, into the direction of traffic. At this point, Ross was standing at the front-left of the vehicle and fired three shots, killing her as her vehicle passed him, turning away from him. The incident sparked national protests and multiple investigations.
Federal law enforcement officials and President Donald Trump defended the shooting, claiming that the agent acted in self-defense, that Good ran him over, and that the agent was recovering in a hospital. However, these accounts were contested by eyewitnesses, journalists, and Democratic Party lawmakers, some of whom called for criminal proceedings against Ross. The president and federal officials faced criticism for drawing conclusions before any investigation had been conducted. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz urged ICE to end its presence in the city.
The killing sparked widespread protests in Minneapolis, and other US cities like Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Protests in Minneapolis led to the closure of public schools and increased police presence. Federal agents responded with tear gas and pepper spray, while Governor Walz activated the National Guard. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division refused to open a constitutional investigation, prompting over a dozen federal prosecutors in Minneapolis and Washington to resign in protest. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, along with Minneapolis and Saint Paul, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to halt ICE deployments. This incident intensified national debate over immigration enforcement and reignited calls to abolish ICE.
On January 24, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, an American intensive care nurse for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, was fatally shot multiple times by United States Customs and Border Protection agents. This incident unfolded amidst widespread protests against Operation Metro Surge, particularly following the tragic killing of Renée Good on January 7 by a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.
Pretti was filming law enforcement agents with his phone and directing traffic. At one point, he positioned himself between an agent and a woman whom the agent had pushed to the ground. In a protective gesture, he placed his arm around the woman. Subsequently, he was pepper-sprayed and wrestled to the ground by several federal agents. When he was shot and killed, approximately six agents surrounded him.
Bystander video footage, reviewed and verified by reputable news organizations such as Reuters, the BBC, The Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press (AP), appears to provide a clear account of the events. The video shows an agent removing a gun and moving away from Pretti roughly one second before another agent fired at him. Notably, an audible sound of “gun, gun” can be heard just before the first shot.
Pretti was legally licensed to carry a handgun. However, video evidence reviewed by Reuters, the BBC, The New York Times, CNN, and The Guardian showed that he was holding a cell phone, not a gun, in the moments before being tackled and pinned to the ground. Agents shot at him at least ten times within five seconds, even after he lay motionless. Nearly two dozen witnesses to the shooting were taken to and detained at the federally-controlled Whipple Building for hours before being released. Similar to the Renée Good case, state investigators were denied access to the shooting scene by the federal government.
Initially, the Trump administration defended the shooting, but many of its claims were contradicted by video evidence and witness testimony. The shooting intensified ongoing protests against US immigration forces both locally and nationally. The killing and the government’s defense sparked widespread criticism, including from Republicans, prompting Trump to attempt a course correction. However, this move has been met with skepticism by local activists, who anticipate continued immigration enforcement in the region. Additionally, comments by Trump administration officials condemning Pretti’s possession of a firearm were condemned by gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA), citing his rights under the Second Amendment.
Federal law enforcement officials and President Donald Trump defended the shooting, claiming that the agent acted in self-defense, that Good ran him over, and that the agent was recovering in a hospital. However, these accounts were contested by eyewitnesses, journalists, and Democratic Party lawmakers, some of whom called for criminal proceedings against Ross. The president and federal officials faced criticism for drawing conclusions before any investigation had been conducted. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz urged ICE to end its presence in the city.
The killing sparked widespread protests in Minneapolis, and other US cities like Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Protests in Minneapolis led to the closure of public schools and increased police presence. Federal agents responded with tear gas and pepper spray, while Governor Walz activated the National Guard. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division refused to open a constitutional investigation, prompting over a dozen federal prosecutors in Minneapolis and Washington to resign in protest. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, along with Minneapolis and Saint Paul, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to halt ICE deployments. This incident intensified national debate over immigration enforcement and reignited calls to abolish ICE.
On January 24, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, an American intensive care nurse for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, was fatally shot multiple times by United States Customs and Border Protection agents. This incident unfolded amidst widespread protests against Operation Metro Surge, particularly following the tragic killing of Renée Good on January 7 by a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.
Pretti was filming law enforcement agents with his phone and directing traffic. At one point, he positioned himself between an agent and a woman whom the agent had pushed to the ground. In a protective gesture, he placed his arm around the woman. Subsequently, he was pepper-sprayed and wrestled to the ground by several federal agents. When he was shot and killed, approximately six agents surrounded him.
Bystander video footage, reviewed and verified by reputable news organizations such as Reuters, the BBC, The Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press (AP), appears to provide a clear account of the events. The video shows an agent removing a gun and moving away from Pretti roughly one second before another agent fired at him. Notably, an audible sound of “gun, gun” can be heard just before the first shot.
Pretti was legally licensed to carry a handgun. However, video evidence reviewed by Reuters, the BBC, The New York Times, CNN, and The Guardian showed that he was holding a cell phone, not a gun, in the moments before being tackled and pinned to the ground. Agents shot at him at least ten times within five seconds, even after he lay motionless. Nearly two dozen witnesses to the shooting were taken to and detained at the federally-controlled Whipple Building for hours before being released. Similar to the Renée Good case, state investigators were denied access to the shooting scene by the federal government.
Initially, the Trump administration defended the shooting, but many of its claims were contradicted by video evidence and witness testimony. The shooting intensified ongoing protests against US immigration forces both locally and nationally. The killing and the government’s defense sparked widespread criticism, including from Republicans, prompting Trump to attempt a course correction. However, this move has been met with skepticism by local activists, who anticipate continued immigration enforcement in the region. Additionally, comments by Trump administration officials condemning Pretti’s possession of a firearm were condemned by gun rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA), citing his rights under the Second Amendment.
Tracee Mergen
Supervisor in the F.B.I.’s Minneapolis field office
Resister
Jan 24 - An F.B.I. agent, Tracee Mergen, who was investigating the federal immigration officer who fatally shot a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis this month, has resigned from the bureau, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Mergen, who was a supervisor in the F.B.I.’s Minneapolis field office, left her job after bureau leadership in Washington pressured her to stop a civil rights inquiry into the immigration officer, Jonathan Ross. Such inquiries are a common investigative step in similar shootings.
Mergen’s resignation is the latest shockwave to emerge from the Justice Department’s handling of the shooting of Renee Good, an unarmed mother who was killed on January 7 while driving her Honda Pilot.
After the incident, several Trump administration officials described Ms. Good as a “domestic terrorist” and accused her of trying to ram Mr. Ross with her vehicle. However, a video analysis by The New York Times showed no evidence that he had been run over.
Senior Justice Department officials have repeatedly stated that there are no plans to follow the usual course of action in such situations and pursue an investigation into whether Mr. Ross, who fired multiple shots at Ms. Good, used excessive force.
Federal investigators have also refused to cooperate with state and local prosecutors in Minnesota, complicating any efforts they might take to open their own investigations into Mr. Ross.
Instead of allowing Ms. Mergen to work with the U.S. attorney’s office in Minneapolis to investigate Mr. Ross, the Justice Department has decided to investigate Ms. Good and her partner, Becca Good, and scrutinize their possible ties to left-wing protest groups in Minneapolis. This decision prompted at least six senior prosecutors in the office to resign in protest.
In a separate development, the Justice Department has initiated an investigation into several elected Democrats in Minnesota. The investigation aims to determine if they may have conspired to hinder the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts in the state. As part of this inquiry, the department issued subpoenas this week to the offices of Governor Tim Walz, Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis, and Mayor Kaohly Her of St. Paul, among others.
Furthermore, the Justice Department has begun taking action against protesters who have opposed the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement measures in Minnesota.
Mergen, who was a supervisor in the F.B.I.’s Minneapolis field office, left her job after bureau leadership in Washington pressured her to stop a civil rights inquiry into the immigration officer, Jonathan Ross. Such inquiries are a common investigative step in similar shootings.
Mergen’s resignation is the latest shockwave to emerge from the Justice Department’s handling of the shooting of Renee Good, an unarmed mother who was killed on January 7 while driving her Honda Pilot.
After the incident, several Trump administration officials described Ms. Good as a “domestic terrorist” and accused her of trying to ram Mr. Ross with her vehicle. However, a video analysis by The New York Times showed no evidence that he had been run over.
Senior Justice Department officials have repeatedly stated that there are no plans to follow the usual course of action in such situations and pursue an investigation into whether Mr. Ross, who fired multiple shots at Ms. Good, used excessive force.
Federal investigators have also refused to cooperate with state and local prosecutors in Minnesota, complicating any efforts they might take to open their own investigations into Mr. Ross.
Instead of allowing Ms. Mergen to work with the U.S. attorney’s office in Minneapolis to investigate Mr. Ross, the Justice Department has decided to investigate Ms. Good and her partner, Becca Good, and scrutinize their possible ties to left-wing protest groups in Minneapolis. This decision prompted at least six senior prosecutors in the office to resign in protest.
In a separate development, the Justice Department has initiated an investigation into several elected Democrats in Minnesota. The investigation aims to determine if they may have conspired to hinder the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts in the state. As part of this inquiry, the department issued subpoenas this week to the offices of Governor Tim Walz, Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis, and Mayor Kaohly Her of St. Paul, among others.
Furthermore, the Justice Department has begun taking action against protesters who have opposed the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement measures in Minnesota.
Mark Carney
Canadian Prime Minister
Resister
Jan 21 - Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada delivered a powerful speech in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday. His speech prompted a rare standing ovation from global political and corporate leaders in the audience.
Carney described the end of the era dominated by United States hegemony, calling the current phase a “rupture.” While he never explicitly named President Trump, his reference was unmistakable.
This speech coincided with President Trump’s renewed threats to seize Greenland from Denmark. He threatened to impose additional tariffs on European powers as punishment for their support of Greenland’s sovereignty.
Global leaders are scrambling to find a unified response to these escalating tensions.
Carney emphasized the ongoing era of great power rivalry and the decline of the rules-based order. He warned that the strong will act as they please, while the weak will suffer the consequences.
Carney stressed the importance of middle powers working together, as they risk being marginalized if they fail to participate in the global stage.
Carney’s experience is relevant to this situation. During his first presidential term, President Trump made claims of Canada as the 51st state and threatened to unilaterally scrap agreements governing the relationship between the neighboring countries for over a century.
Mr. Trump has imposed tariffs on Canada, one of America’s two top trading partners, along with Mexico. These tariffs are crippling some of Canada’s key economic sectors, including automobiles, steel, aluminum, and lumber.
Mr. Trump’s allies, particularly Steve Bannon, have discussed the potential benefits of the United States annexing Canada. This annexation would provide access to Canada’s vast Arctic and natural resources, including critical minerals and rare earths.
Mr. Carney criticized other leaders, many of whom were likely following his speech in Davos, for not standing up for their interests.
He emphasized the tendency for countries to compromise and avoid conflict in order to maintain stability. However, he argued that compliance alone does not guarantee safety.
Mr. Carney made it clear that he is choosing a different approach.
Carney described the end of the era dominated by United States hegemony, calling the current phase a “rupture.” While he never explicitly named President Trump, his reference was unmistakable.
This speech coincided with President Trump’s renewed threats to seize Greenland from Denmark. He threatened to impose additional tariffs on European powers as punishment for their support of Greenland’s sovereignty.
Global leaders are scrambling to find a unified response to these escalating tensions.
Carney emphasized the ongoing era of great power rivalry and the decline of the rules-based order. He warned that the strong will act as they please, while the weak will suffer the consequences.
Carney stressed the importance of middle powers working together, as they risk being marginalized if they fail to participate in the global stage.
Carney’s experience is relevant to this situation. During his first presidential term, President Trump made claims of Canada as the 51st state and threatened to unilaterally scrap agreements governing the relationship between the neighboring countries for over a century.
Mr. Trump has imposed tariffs on Canada, one of America’s two top trading partners, along with Mexico. These tariffs are crippling some of Canada’s key economic sectors, including automobiles, steel, aluminum, and lumber.
Mr. Trump’s allies, particularly Steve Bannon, have discussed the potential benefits of the United States annexing Canada. This annexation would provide access to Canada’s vast Arctic and natural resources, including critical minerals and rare earths.
Mr. Carney criticized other leaders, many of whom were likely following his speech in Davos, for not standing up for their interests.
He emphasized the tendency for countries to compromise and avoid conflict in order to maintain stability. However, he argued that compliance alone does not guarantee safety.
Mr. Carney made it clear that he is choosing a different approach.
Jerome Powell
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
Resister
Jan 18 - Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, recently garnered significant support that has been cultivated over several years. Powell had prepared a list of Congress members he anticipated would support him after confronting President Trump following a criminal investigation by the Justice Department. This belief was not baseless; it stemmed from years of relationship-building on Capitol Hill since Trump appointed Powell as the central bank’s leader in his first term.
After the central bank received grand jury subpoenas on January 9, Powell reached out to numerous lawmakers, including Senators Susan M. Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. He also spoke with Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, a staunch Republican critic and member of the Senate Banking Committee. Cramer mentioned in an interview that he had discussed the investigation’s implications and its potential link to the president’s pressure on the central bank to lower borrowing costs with Powell before the Fed chair’s video message to the Trump administration.
Cramer praised Powell’s focus on relationships, stating, “Prioritizing the relationship piece of it can save you lots of other times, so I give Jay Powell all the credit in the world for that.” He noted that many people in an administration face trouble when they lack regular contact with their overseers.
By Monday, the investigation into Powell had become a political issue for the president. Republican lawmakers, who had previously remained silent about Trump’s attacks on the Fed chair, criticized the investigation as an overreach. Shortly after the Fed’s video release on Sunday, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a key Banking Committee member, announced he would block any attempt by Trump to nominate a new Fed chair, disrupting the president’s replacement plans. Powell also received support from Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader. Every living former Fed chair and Treasury secretaries from both parties condemned the move, and Jamie Dimon, Wall Street’s top banker, defended Powell.
The strong response highlighted the significant threat to the central bank’s independence, which allows officials to set interest rates based on economic needs rather than presidential pressure.
After the central bank received grand jury subpoenas on January 9, Powell reached out to numerous lawmakers, including Senators Susan M. Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. He also spoke with Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, a staunch Republican critic and member of the Senate Banking Committee. Cramer mentioned in an interview that he had discussed the investigation’s implications and its potential link to the president’s pressure on the central bank to lower borrowing costs with Powell before the Fed chair’s video message to the Trump administration.
Cramer praised Powell’s focus on relationships, stating, “Prioritizing the relationship piece of it can save you lots of other times, so I give Jay Powell all the credit in the world for that.” He noted that many people in an administration face trouble when they lack regular contact with their overseers.
By Monday, the investigation into Powell had become a political issue for the president. Republican lawmakers, who had previously remained silent about Trump’s attacks on the Fed chair, criticized the investigation as an overreach. Shortly after the Fed’s video release on Sunday, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a key Banking Committee member, announced he would block any attempt by Trump to nominate a new Fed chair, disrupting the president’s replacement plans. Powell also received support from Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader. Every living former Fed chair and Treasury secretaries from both parties condemned the move, and Jamie Dimon, Wall Street’s top banker, defended Powell.
The strong response highlighted the significant threat to the central bank’s independence, which allows officials to set interest rates based on economic needs rather than presidential pressure.
Representative Thomas Massie
Republican Member of the House Of Representatives from Kentucky
Resister
Jan 12 - As 2026 approached, Thomas Massie had already become the Republican House member most disliked by President Trump. Known for his libertarian views and stubborn nature, the Kentucky conservative frequently opposed Trump last year, including his domestic policy bill, his strikes on Iran, and his efforts to release the Epstein files, while generally refusing to comply with the president’s demands. Months ago, Trump vowed to eliminate Massie in the upcoming midterms. His political team established an anti-Massie super PAC, launched early attack ads, recruited a primary challenger more aligned with Trump, and consistently criticized the seven-term congressman.
Did Massie soften his stance as he entered a re-election year, facing a challenging battle driven by an angry president? Not quite. He strongly opposed the administration’s January 3 military action in Venezuela, which led to the capture of its president, Nicolás Maduro. As a committed anti-interventionist, Massie was outraged by what he viewed as an illegal and unconstitutional act of adventurism. “Wake up MAGA,” he exclaimed on X. “This is not what we voted for.”
His criticism ignited an online conflict with Trump, joined by Massie’s Trump-endorsed primary challenger, Ed Gallrein. The president resorted to heavy name-calling, labeling Massie as “loser,” “weak,” “lightweight,” and “RINO,” and urged “all MAGA warriors” to abandon Massie and support Gallrein. This would have intimidated a more cautious Republican.
What did Massie do next? On Thursday, he and his Democratic colleague Ro Khanna intensified their efforts to obtain the files on Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and sex offender, by requesting a federal judge to appoint a special master to oversee their release. They accused the Department of Justice of being untrustworthy in making mandatory disclosures.
Positioning his candidacy as a defense against unchecked presidential power is not a typical strategy for a House member in a deep-red district in a state Trump won by 30 points in 2024. However, Massie believes it aligns with his long-standing “brand” and record as a lawmaker who thinks independently and fights for his principles. He is promoting the idea that voters have a choice between a rubber stamp for the president or someone who uses their own judgment to cast the best vote for 750,000 people in Kentucky.
Did Massie soften his stance as he entered a re-election year, facing a challenging battle driven by an angry president? Not quite. He strongly opposed the administration’s January 3 military action in Venezuela, which led to the capture of its president, Nicolás Maduro. As a committed anti-interventionist, Massie was outraged by what he viewed as an illegal and unconstitutional act of adventurism. “Wake up MAGA,” he exclaimed on X. “This is not what we voted for.”
His criticism ignited an online conflict with Trump, joined by Massie’s Trump-endorsed primary challenger, Ed Gallrein. The president resorted to heavy name-calling, labeling Massie as “loser,” “weak,” “lightweight,” and “RINO,” and urged “all MAGA warriors” to abandon Massie and support Gallrein. This would have intimidated a more cautious Republican.
What did Massie do next? On Thursday, he and his Democratic colleague Ro Khanna intensified their efforts to obtain the files on Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and sex offender, by requesting a federal judge to appoint a special master to oversee their release. They accused the Department of Justice of being untrustworthy in making mandatory disclosures.
Positioning his candidacy as a defense against unchecked presidential power is not a typical strategy for a House member in a deep-red district in a state Trump won by 30 points in 2024. However, Massie believes it aligns with his long-standing “brand” and record as a lawmaker who thinks independently and fights for his principles. He is promoting the idea that voters have a choice between a rubber stamp for the president or someone who uses their own judgment to cast the best vote for 750,000 people in Kentucky.
Judge John H. Chun
District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Resister
Jan 10 - A federal judge has blocked significant portions of an executive order by the Trump administration aimed at reforming the federal elections process. Judge John H. Chun, appointed by President Biden, ruled in a 75-page decision from Seattle that the federal government cannot withhold funding from states that do not comply with the order. The ruling prevents Trump from mandating that election officials in states like Washington and Oregon enforce a mail-in ballot receipt deadline of Election Day.
Chun emphasized that the Constitution grants states the authority to regulate elections, with Congress having only limited oversight. He stated that the President lacks constitutional authority to impose a national ballot-receipt deadline. Additionally, Chun halted a provision that would have stopped funding to states not using federal forms requiring “documentary proof of United States citizenship” for voter registration.
The judge’s decision undermines Trump’s executive action, which was part of his ongoing claims of widespread voter fraud following his 2020 election defeat. Trump has consistently alleged that the election was “stolen” and “rigged,” attributing these claims to the increase in mail-in voting during the pandemic. The executive order criticized mail-in voting, describing the acceptance of absentee or mail-in votes received after Election Day as “absurd,” despite many states allowing such ballots if postmarked by Election Day.
The order quickly faced legal opposition, with several Democratic-led states arguing that the president overstepped his authority by interfering with state election regulations. Chun supported this argument, declaring the executive order unconstitutional due to its violation of the separation of powers.
Oregon and Washington filed separate lawsuits because the executive order posed specific threats to their universal mail-in voting systems, according to the Associated Press. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown celebrated the ruling, stating it was a significant victory for voters in Washington and Oregon and upheld the constitutional principle that only states and Congress can regulate elections.
Chun emphasized that the Constitution grants states the authority to regulate elections, with Congress having only limited oversight. He stated that the President lacks constitutional authority to impose a national ballot-receipt deadline. Additionally, Chun halted a provision that would have stopped funding to states not using federal forms requiring “documentary proof of United States citizenship” for voter registration.
The judge’s decision undermines Trump’s executive action, which was part of his ongoing claims of widespread voter fraud following his 2020 election defeat. Trump has consistently alleged that the election was “stolen” and “rigged,” attributing these claims to the increase in mail-in voting during the pandemic. The executive order criticized mail-in voting, describing the acceptance of absentee or mail-in votes received after Election Day as “absurd,” despite many states allowing such ballots if postmarked by Election Day.
The order quickly faced legal opposition, with several Democratic-led states arguing that the president overstepped his authority by interfering with state election regulations. Chun supported this argument, declaring the executive order unconstitutional due to its violation of the separation of powers.
Oregon and Washington filed separate lawsuits because the executive order posed specific threats to their universal mail-in voting systems, according to the Associated Press. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown celebrated the ruling, stating it was a significant victory for voters in Washington and Oregon and upheld the constitutional principle that only states and Congress can regulate elections.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
The First Circuit includes the Districts of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island
Resister
Jan 9 - A federal appeals court ruled on Monday that the Trump administration could not make significant cuts to the federal funding supporting much of the country’s medical and scientific research. This decision reaffirms a lower court’s ruling from early last year.
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that one of the Trump administration’s earliest attempts to hinder universities, through proposed reductions to grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was unlawful. The proposal faced strong opposition from hundreds of universities and hospitals, who warned that the cuts could cost them billions of dollars and make it impossible to continue research in areas such as cancer, genetics, and infectious disease.
The proposed cuts targeted the pre-negotiated rates in thousands of federal grants that allocated funds for overhead costs in medical research, including facility maintenance, laboratory technology, and support staff. Many universities and hospitals affected by the cuts argued that the funding for these indirect costs was often shared. A single grant could cover the costs of multiple laboratories and experiments simultaneously. Therefore, a loss of funds could threaten not only research directly covered by the grants but also a wide range of other work.
In February, the Trump administration proposed capping the amount of money that could be allocated for overhead costs to 15 percent of any given grant. However, the previously agreed-upon rates often exceeded 30 or 40 percent.
In an opinion explaining Monday’s decision, Judge Kermit V. Lipez, a Clinton appointee, emphasized that lawmakers had established a “carefully circumscribed procedure that controls any deviation” from agreed-upon funding rates in federal grants.
Judge Lipez stated that Congress had gone to great lengths to ensure that the NIH could not replace negotiated indirect cost reimbursement rates with a uniform rate.
Judge Lipez pointed out President Trump’s attempt in his first term to cap reimbursement of overhead costs at 10 percent in a budget proposal in 2017. However, Congress rejected this proposal.
The prospect of such a sudden funding cut raised significant concerns in the medical research community. Many facilities across the country might shut down, leading to permanent losses in advanced research.
In April, Judge Angel Kelley of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts permanently blocked the Trump administration from capping the funding. Consequently, the proposal remained stalled throughout last year.
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that one of the Trump administration’s earliest attempts to hinder universities, through proposed reductions to grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was unlawful. The proposal faced strong opposition from hundreds of universities and hospitals, who warned that the cuts could cost them billions of dollars and make it impossible to continue research in areas such as cancer, genetics, and infectious disease.
The proposed cuts targeted the pre-negotiated rates in thousands of federal grants that allocated funds for overhead costs in medical research, including facility maintenance, laboratory technology, and support staff. Many universities and hospitals affected by the cuts argued that the funding for these indirect costs was often shared. A single grant could cover the costs of multiple laboratories and experiments simultaneously. Therefore, a loss of funds could threaten not only research directly covered by the grants but also a wide range of other work.
In February, the Trump administration proposed capping the amount of money that could be allocated for overhead costs to 15 percent of any given grant. However, the previously agreed-upon rates often exceeded 30 or 40 percent.
In an opinion explaining Monday’s decision, Judge Kermit V. Lipez, a Clinton appointee, emphasized that lawmakers had established a “carefully circumscribed procedure that controls any deviation” from agreed-upon funding rates in federal grants.
Judge Lipez stated that Congress had gone to great lengths to ensure that the NIH could not replace negotiated indirect cost reimbursement rates with a uniform rate.
Judge Lipez pointed out President Trump’s attempt in his first term to cap reimbursement of overhead costs at 10 percent in a budget proposal in 2017. However, Congress rejected this proposal.
The prospect of such a sudden funding cut raised significant concerns in the medical research community. Many facilities across the country might shut down, leading to permanent losses in advanced research.
In April, Judge Angel Kelley of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts permanently blocked the Trump administration from capping the funding. Consequently, the proposal remained stalled throughout last year.
Judge James Boasberg
Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Resister
Jan 4 - A federal judge in Washington, James E. Boasberg, ruled on Monday that the Trump administration must either facilitate the return of a group of Venezuelan immigrants deported to El Salvador in March and then sent back to Venezuela, or provide them with an opportunity to legally contest their expulsions. This decision is the latest development in the ongoing case of the Venezuelan men, who were expelled on March 15 under President Trump’s proclamation using the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law. The men, accused of being part of the Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua, were deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, where many later alleged they were tortured.
Over the past nine months, the case has traversed all levels of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, addressing various issues, such as whether the Trump administration should be held in contempt for violating Judge Boasberg’s initial order to halt the deportation flights to El Salvador. The judge’s ruling on Monday emphasized the need for the administration to ensure due process for the men, who were returned to Venezuela this summer in a prisoner swap for 10 Americans and U.S. permanent residents. By January 5, Trump officials must decide whether to facilitate the men’s return to the United States or provide them with hearings that meet due process requirements.
Any challenges would focus not on whether Mr. Trump improperly invoked the Alien Enemies Act—a matter currently being considered by a different court in Texas—but rather on whether the men were indeed members of Tren de Aragua and should have been subject to the president’s proclamation. Judge Boasberg stated, “Even if the A.E.A. was properly invoked as a general matter, it is beyond cavil that designated ‘alien enemies’ under that act must be afforded some process to contest their designation. Here, plaintiffs received none. They were not told of their designation or informed that they could challenge it before being loaded onto planes and shipped out of the United States.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the Venezuelan men, praised Judge Boasberg’s ruling as a victory. Lee Gelernt, the lead lawyer for the ACLU in the case, stated, “This is an important ruling not just for these men who were tortured but for the rule of law. The court made clear that the Trump administration cannot so easily escape judicial scrutiny of its policies, which has been its goal all along.”
Over the past nine months, the case has traversed all levels of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, addressing various issues, such as whether the Trump administration should be held in contempt for violating Judge Boasberg’s initial order to halt the deportation flights to El Salvador. The judge’s ruling on Monday emphasized the need for the administration to ensure due process for the men, who were returned to Venezuela this summer in a prisoner swap for 10 Americans and U.S. permanent residents. By January 5, Trump officials must decide whether to facilitate the men’s return to the United States or provide them with hearings that meet due process requirements.
Any challenges would focus not on whether Mr. Trump improperly invoked the Alien Enemies Act—a matter currently being considered by a different court in Texas—but rather on whether the men were indeed members of Tren de Aragua and should have been subject to the president’s proclamation. Judge Boasberg stated, “Even if the A.E.A. was properly invoked as a general matter, it is beyond cavil that designated ‘alien enemies’ under that act must be afforded some process to contest their designation. Here, plaintiffs received none. They were not told of their designation or informed that they could challenge it before being loaded onto planes and shipped out of the United States.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the Venezuelan men, praised Judge Boasberg’s ruling as a victory. Lee Gelernt, the lead lawyer for the ACLU in the case, stated, “This is an important ruling not just for these men who were tortured but for the rule of law. The court made clear that the Trump administration cannot so easily escape judicial scrutiny of its policies, which has been its goal all along.”
Email Us With Your Ideas and Feedback xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Send me periodic Email Reminders with the link to this website