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 - Apr 1 - Jun 30, 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 William M. Ray II
US District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Resister
July 7 - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Department of Justice cannot obtain the names and personal contact information of everyone who worked during the 2020 election in Georgia’s Fulton County. In April, the Justice Department issued a grand jury subpoena seeking this information from county employees and volunteer poll workers. This move followed President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud in Fulton County, a Democratic stronghold, which he alleged cost him the state in the 2020 election.
Fulton County requested the judge to quash the subpoena, arguing it was intended to “target, harass, and punish the President’s perceived political opponents” and was “grossly overbroad and untethered to any reasonable need.” U.S. District Judge William Ray (a Trump appointee) agreed, stating, “Given the low need for the subpoenaed information and the highly burdensome nature of the disclosure of the same, the Subpoena is unreasonable and must be quashed.”
The subpoena followed an FBI search warrant in January at the Fulton County election hub, where hundreds of boxes of ballots and documents from the 2020 election were seized. In May, a federal judge denied the county’s request to have the federal government return the ballots.
The Justice Department argued that the subpoena was a “next step in the normal investigative process” aimed at identifying individuals with relevant knowledge. However, Kamal Ghali, a lawyer for the county, contended that the subpoena would deter election worker participation and noted that the statute of limitations for any alleged misconduct had expired. Justice Department lawyer William McComb countered that the statute of limitations is not relevant during the investigative stage, as the goal is to determine potential charges. He emphasized that the request for contact information was intended to identify individuals who might have witnessed or participated in any activities at the polls.
During a May hearing, Judge Ray focused on whether the federal government’s request for election worker contact information was reasonable, stating, “You know, an overly broad fishing expedition is bad and is not allowed. But one that’s not overly broad is kind of okay. And the question is, how do we — how does — how do I as a judge decide when does it go too far?”
Fulton County requested the judge to quash the subpoena, arguing it was intended to “target, harass, and punish the President’s perceived political opponents” and was “grossly overbroad and untethered to any reasonable need.” U.S. District Judge William Ray (a Trump appointee) agreed, stating, “Given the low need for the subpoenaed information and the highly burdensome nature of the disclosure of the same, the Subpoena is unreasonable and must be quashed.”
The subpoena followed an FBI search warrant in January at the Fulton County election hub, where hundreds of boxes of ballots and documents from the 2020 election were seized. In May, a federal judge denied the county’s request to have the federal government return the ballots.
The Justice Department argued that the subpoena was a “next step in the normal investigative process” aimed at identifying individuals with relevant knowledge. However, Kamal Ghali, a lawyer for the county, contended that the subpoena would deter election worker participation and noted that the statute of limitations for any alleged misconduct had expired. Justice Department lawyer William McComb countered that the statute of limitations is not relevant during the investigative stage, as the goal is to determine potential charges. He emphasized that the request for contact information was intended to identify individuals who might have witnessed or participated in any activities at the polls.
During a May hearing, Judge Ray focused on whether the federal government’s request for election worker contact information was reasonable, stating, “You know, an overly broad fishing expedition is bad and is not allowed. But one that’s not overly broad is kind of okay. And the question is, how do we — how does — how do I as a judge decide when does it go too far?”
Judge Indira Talwani
US District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Resister
Jun 27 - A federal court in Massachusetts invalidated key parts of President Trump’s executive order aimed at imposing significant restrictions on mail voting, declaring it “unlawful, null, and void.” The order attempted to use federal oversight of the U.S. Postal Service to regulate mail voting.
Judge Indira Talwani’s ruling broadly rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to alter federal election procedures through an executive order, emphasizing that the Constitution assigns election authority to individual states and Congress, not the executive branch.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Judge Talwani stated, underscoring the word “does not.”
Trump’s executive order, signed in March, instructed the Department of Homeland Security to compile state-by-state citizen lists to assess voter eligibility and called on the Postal Service to verify voters using these lists. Earlier this month, the Postal Service released a proposed rule aligning with many of Trump’s demands.
Several lawsuits challenged the executive order, including a separate case in Washington, D.C., where a judge initially declined to block it, citing a lack of legal harm since it had not been implemented.
However, Judge Talwani found that the executive order had already prompted many states involved in the Massachusetts lawsuit to modify election policies and procedures. Connecticut had reallocated election workers to prepare for the order, and nearly half the states were dealing with mail ballot envelopes that did not comply with the directive.
“Not only are Plaintiff States experiencing injury now with respect to planning, but it is undisputed that, should the E.O.’s directives go into effect, Plaintiff States will incur compliance costs,” Judge Talwani, appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote.
Judge Talwani determined that the power to create voter lists and determine eligibility belongs to the states, stating that “the Constitution reserves the power to determine voter eligibility to the States alone.”
She also questioned the reliability of the records the government intended to use, noting issues with tracking name changes due to marriage or residence changes when citizens move between states.
“It is clear that the federal agencies charged with compiling Confirmed Citizen Lists lack the ability to create complete and accurate lists of the U.S. citizens residing in every State,” Judge Talwani wrote.
Regarding the executive authority, she found that “the President lacks any authority to compile voter lists for each State.”
Similarly, concerning the directive for the Postal Service to oversee mail voting more directly, Judge Talwani concluded that the agency lacked election authority.
“No law enacted by Congress delegates authority to control mail-in voting to U.S.P.S.,” Judge Talwani wrote, adding that the service “lacks statutory authorization to promulgate any binding regulations on mail-in voting.”
Judge Indira Talwani’s ruling broadly rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to alter federal election procedures through an executive order, emphasizing that the Constitution assigns election authority to individual states and Congress, not the executive branch.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Judge Talwani stated, underscoring the word “does not.”
Trump’s executive order, signed in March, instructed the Department of Homeland Security to compile state-by-state citizen lists to assess voter eligibility and called on the Postal Service to verify voters using these lists. Earlier this month, the Postal Service released a proposed rule aligning with many of Trump’s demands.
Several lawsuits challenged the executive order, including a separate case in Washington, D.C., where a judge initially declined to block it, citing a lack of legal harm since it had not been implemented.
However, Judge Talwani found that the executive order had already prompted many states involved in the Massachusetts lawsuit to modify election policies and procedures. Connecticut had reallocated election workers to prepare for the order, and nearly half the states were dealing with mail ballot envelopes that did not comply with the directive.
“Not only are Plaintiff States experiencing injury now with respect to planning, but it is undisputed that, should the E.O.’s directives go into effect, Plaintiff States will incur compliance costs,” Judge Talwani, appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote.
Judge Talwani determined that the power to create voter lists and determine eligibility belongs to the states, stating that “the Constitution reserves the power to determine voter eligibility to the States alone.”
She also questioned the reliability of the records the government intended to use, noting issues with tracking name changes due to marriage or residence changes when citizens move between states.
“It is clear that the federal agencies charged with compiling Confirmed Citizen Lists lack the ability to create complete and accurate lists of the U.S. citizens residing in every State,” Judge Talwani wrote.
Regarding the executive authority, she found that “the President lacks any authority to compile voter lists for each State.”
Similarly, concerning the directive for the Postal Service to oversee mail voting more directly, Judge Talwani concluded that the agency lacked election authority.
“No law enacted by Congress delegates authority to control mail-in voting to U.S.P.S.,” Judge Talwani wrote, adding that the service “lacks statutory authorization to promulgate any binding regulations on mail-in voting.”
Judge Patrick J. Schlitz
Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
Resister
Jun 23 - A federal judge in Minnesota invalidated the Justice Department’s subpoenas directed at state and local officials, as revealed in a ruling made public on Monday. The judge determined that the Trump administration had misused the grand jury process for political reasons. These subpoenas were issued during the administration’s intense winter immigration crackdown in Minnesota.
Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, appointed by President George W. Bush, criticized the subpoenas in his opinion, stating that their main aim was to pressure Minnesota officials into aiding federal civil immigration enforcement and to intimidate them for not complying.
Judge Schiltz had previously expressed concerns about the Trump administration’s actions during Operation Metro Surge, a crackdown involving thousands of agents, resulting in numerous arrests in Minnesota and three shootings in Minneapolis.
Earlier this winter, Judge Schiltz summoned the leader of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to explain why individuals arrested by immigration agents were detained without a chance to contest their detentions. He later withdrew this demand after the central immigrant in the case was released.
A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman dismissed a previous order from Judge Schiltz as a “diatribe from this activist judge” and declined to comment on Monday.
In January, during Operation Metro Surge, the Justice Department issued subpoenas to the offices of several prominent Minnesota Democrats who opposed the Trump administration’s immigration policies, seeking records on their immigration enforcement policies.
Judge Schiltz noted that the subpoenas were justified as an investigation into potential violations of federal laws against concealing undocumented immigration or obstructing the government. However, he argued that the subpoenas targeted activities that are not only legal but also constitutionally protected from federal interference.
The officials who received subpoenas included Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis, and Mayor Kaohly Her of St. Paul. Several of them praised the judge’s decision as a triumph for the rule of law.
Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, appointed by President George W. Bush, criticized the subpoenas in his opinion, stating that their main aim was to pressure Minnesota officials into aiding federal civil immigration enforcement and to intimidate them for not complying.
Judge Schiltz had previously expressed concerns about the Trump administration’s actions during Operation Metro Surge, a crackdown involving thousands of agents, resulting in numerous arrests in Minnesota and three shootings in Minneapolis.
Earlier this winter, Judge Schiltz summoned the leader of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to explain why individuals arrested by immigration agents were detained without a chance to contest their detentions. He later withdrew this demand after the central immigrant in the case was released.
A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman dismissed a previous order from Judge Schiltz as a “diatribe from this activist judge” and declined to comment on Monday.
In January, during Operation Metro Surge, the Justice Department issued subpoenas to the offices of several prominent Minnesota Democrats who opposed the Trump administration’s immigration policies, seeking records on their immigration enforcement policies.
Judge Schiltz noted that the subpoenas were justified as an investigation into potential violations of federal laws against concealing undocumented immigration or obstructing the government. However, he argued that the subpoenas targeted activities that are not only legal but also constitutionally protected from federal interference.
The officials who received subpoenas included Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis, and Mayor Kaohly Her of St. Paul. Several of them praised the judge’s decision as a triumph for the rule of law.
Senator Bill Cassidy
U.S. Senator from Louisiana
Resister
Jun 17 - Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana criticized the agreement between the Trump administration and Iran, just two days before its signing. He described the details he has seen as “awful” and predicted it would be a significant foreign policy error.
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) suggests ending hostilities on all fronts, including the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days. It also mentions that the U.S. and regional partners would allocate at least $300 billion for Iran’s reconstruction fund, although President Trump stated the U.S. would not contribute.
The agreement would lift all U.S. sanctions on Iran, including those on oil exports, in exchange for Iran’s commitment not to produce nuclear weapons, though it does not prevent uranium enrichment. Cassidy argued that the deal would make Iran stronger and U.S. regional allies weaker. The MOU reportedly calls for a final deal negotiation within 60 days.
Cassidy expressed concern that Iran has learned it can manipulate the Western world by threatening the Strait of Hormuz, calling the deal a “deep mistake.” He criticized the lack of a clear plan, noting the extended timeline since the president initially estimated the Iran conflict would last four to five weeks.
Cassidy emphasized the need for Congress to be fully briefed and involved, as he voted for an unsuccessful resolution to compel Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from combat against Iran. He stated his goal is to allow the American people, through their elected representatives, to have a say in the matter, as the situation is not unfolding as promised.
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) suggests ending hostilities on all fronts, including the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days. It also mentions that the U.S. and regional partners would allocate at least $300 billion for Iran’s reconstruction fund, although President Trump stated the U.S. would not contribute.
The agreement would lift all U.S. sanctions on Iran, including those on oil exports, in exchange for Iran’s commitment not to produce nuclear weapons, though it does not prevent uranium enrichment. Cassidy argued that the deal would make Iran stronger and U.S. regional allies weaker. The MOU reportedly calls for a final deal negotiation within 60 days.
Cassidy expressed concern that Iran has learned it can manipulate the Western world by threatening the Strait of Hormuz, calling the deal a “deep mistake.” He criticized the lack of a clear plan, noting the extended timeline since the president initially estimated the Iran conflict would last four to five weeks.
Cassidy emphasized the need for Congress to be fully briefed and involved, as he voted for an unsuccessful resolution to compel Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from combat against Iran. He stated his goal is to allow the American people, through their elected representatives, to have a say in the matter, as the situation is not unfolding as promised.
Judge Angel Kelley
Judge for the U.S. District Court of the District of Massachusetts
Resister
Jun 14 - A federal judge temporarily halted the National Park Service from altering or removing signs, films, and other materials at national parks nationwide to adhere to a directive from President Trump. The ruling stops the enforcement of an executive order that aimed to remove or obscure materials that “inappropriately disparage Americans” or portray the United States negatively.
Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts also mandated that the Park Service restore any dismantled or altered exhibits within three weeks. This decision offers temporary relief to the plaintiffs, a coalition of advocacy groups that filed a lawsuit against the executive order in February, as the legal proceedings continue.
To follow the president’s directive, the Park Service had removed plaques about slavery at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, a sign about climate change at Fort Sumter in South Carolina, and a sign about Indigenous people at Acadia National Park in Maine. Another federal judge has already instructed the Park Service not to make further changes to the slavery exhibit at the President’s House Site at Independence National Historical Park while she reviews a separate lawsuit from Philadelphia.
Judge Kelley, nominated by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., criticized the Trump administration for removing materials, stating it undermines the integrity of national parks and sets a dangerous precedent for censorship and sanitization. In her 63-page ruling, she highlighted examples of national parks that educate visitors about challenging periods in American history and the contributions of marginalized groups.
The plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit that the removal of materials was “arbitrary and capricious,” violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and accused the Park Service of overstepping its legal authority. Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, praised the ruling, emphasizing that national parks should not be used as propaganda tools or for partisan purposes. She stated that they exist to preserve and interpret the complete American story, not just the parts that are comfortable for some politicians, and that this ruling is crucial in maintaining that principle.
Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts also mandated that the Park Service restore any dismantled or altered exhibits within three weeks. This decision offers temporary relief to the plaintiffs, a coalition of advocacy groups that filed a lawsuit against the executive order in February, as the legal proceedings continue.
To follow the president’s directive, the Park Service had removed plaques about slavery at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, a sign about climate change at Fort Sumter in South Carolina, and a sign about Indigenous people at Acadia National Park in Maine. Another federal judge has already instructed the Park Service not to make further changes to the slavery exhibit at the President’s House Site at Independence National Historical Park while she reviews a separate lawsuit from Philadelphia.
Judge Kelley, nominated by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., criticized the Trump administration for removing materials, stating it undermines the integrity of national parks and sets a dangerous precedent for censorship and sanitization. In her 63-page ruling, she highlighted examples of national parks that educate visitors about challenging periods in American history and the contributions of marginalized groups.
The plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit that the removal of materials was “arbitrary and capricious,” violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and accused the Park Service of overstepping its legal authority. Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, praised the ruling, emphasizing that national parks should not be used as propaganda tools or for partisan purposes. She stated that they exist to preserve and interpret the complete American story, not just the parts that are comfortable for some politicians, and that this ruling is crucial in maintaining that principle.
US Representative Joyce Beatty
US Congresswoman from Ohio and ex-officio member of the Board of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
Resister
Jun 6 - Three months ago, a 75-year-old lawmaker named Representative Joyce Beatty filed a complaint in federal court. She claimed that she had been unlawfully excluded from an upcoming board meeting that would decide the fate of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
It turned out that the invitation had landed in her spam folder. This admission quickly became a political punchline, reminiscent of a real-life Veep episode in Washington politics.
Today, Beatty feels vindicated. Last week, a federal judge ruled in her favor. The judge ordered the removal of President Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center and temporarily halted his plan to close the institution this summer for a two-year renovation project. On Thursday, the Kennedy Center implemented the first half of the ruling. They instructed staff to remove Trump’s name from signage and center materials.
However, Beatty’s legal team filed a new filing yesterday. They stated that the Kennedy Center has yet to clearly indicate that it will comply with the judge’s preliminary injunction. The injunction requires the institution to remain open past July 5.
The lawyers expressed concern that the defendants may intend to proceed with the shutdown, either by inertia or by taking action without clear direction.
Beatty, an Ohio Democrat and an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center board, has been the sole lawmaker behind the months-long legal fight. (A coalition of historic preservationists and architects had also requested a similar injunction in a separate lawsuit. However, the judge denied this request because the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the renovations were subject to certain federal-review laws.)
She and other lawmakers are now deliberating on legislation that could strengthen the Kennedy Center’s statutory safeguards and prevent future administrations from exerting similar control over the institution. Observers of the center are starting to wonder how to revive it after Trump’s detrimental tenure as its board chair—a 16-month period that has resulted in artists canceling performances and sales declining, and which has put the Kennedy Center’s most prominent tenant, the National Symphony Orchestra, in crisis.
Meanwhile, Beatty’s larger legal case will continue toward trial. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s ruling last week only temporarily blocked the center’s planned shutdown, leaving open the possibility that the board could still pursue renovations later after “independently balancing its multiple obligations to the Center in a prudent fashion.”
However, legally saving the center may prove easier than restoring it institutionally.
Trump still holds significant control over the Kennedy Center. He remains the chairperson of its board of trustees, while Matt Floca—a facilities expert appointed by Trump to lead the center’s planned renovations—manages the day-to-day operations within the building. Since an announcement from Trump in February, the staff has been preparing for the center to shut down for two years while most artistic operations cease.
Beatty, now 76, shared that the instability plaguing the Kennedy Center is precisely the very issue her lawsuit aimed to address. She emphasized that her legal challenge sought to protect three fundamental principles: America, the arts, and the rule of law. Since 2019, when she was appointed by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a congressionally designated member, Beatty has been a board member. She described the center’s governance before Trump as formal and collegial, with meetings held at the institution itself. All trustees were acknowledged by the chair and routinely invited to participate in discussions and votes.
However, this harmonious environment swiftly changed after Trump’s return to office and his decision to target the Kennedy Center as a key institution in reshaping Washington’s cultural landscape. Beatty described the rapid transformation as occurring in mere seconds. David Rubenstein, the Kennedy Center’s longtime chairperson, and President Deborah Rutter were ousted, leading to rushed and exclusionary meetings. She recalled the abrupt change, stating, “Donald Trump is the chair—bam! Unanimous.”
Beatty’s political career has been marked by her unwavering defiance. Before entering Congress in 2013, she made history as the first female Democrat House leader in Ohio. Later, she chaired the Congressional Black Caucus. Her national profile has been further solidified at the center of pivotal voting rights and racial justice battles. In 2020, she gained national attention after being pepper-sprayed by police during a Black Lives Matter protest in Columbus. The following year, she was arrested during a voting rights protest at the Capitol.
It turned out that the invitation had landed in her spam folder. This admission quickly became a political punchline, reminiscent of a real-life Veep episode in Washington politics.
Today, Beatty feels vindicated. Last week, a federal judge ruled in her favor. The judge ordered the removal of President Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center and temporarily halted his plan to close the institution this summer for a two-year renovation project. On Thursday, the Kennedy Center implemented the first half of the ruling. They instructed staff to remove Trump’s name from signage and center materials.
However, Beatty’s legal team filed a new filing yesterday. They stated that the Kennedy Center has yet to clearly indicate that it will comply with the judge’s preliminary injunction. The injunction requires the institution to remain open past July 5.
The lawyers expressed concern that the defendants may intend to proceed with the shutdown, either by inertia or by taking action without clear direction.
Beatty, an Ohio Democrat and an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center board, has been the sole lawmaker behind the months-long legal fight. (A coalition of historic preservationists and architects had also requested a similar injunction in a separate lawsuit. However, the judge denied this request because the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the renovations were subject to certain federal-review laws.)
She and other lawmakers are now deliberating on legislation that could strengthen the Kennedy Center’s statutory safeguards and prevent future administrations from exerting similar control over the institution. Observers of the center are starting to wonder how to revive it after Trump’s detrimental tenure as its board chair—a 16-month period that has resulted in artists canceling performances and sales declining, and which has put the Kennedy Center’s most prominent tenant, the National Symphony Orchestra, in crisis.
Meanwhile, Beatty’s larger legal case will continue toward trial. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s ruling last week only temporarily blocked the center’s planned shutdown, leaving open the possibility that the board could still pursue renovations later after “independently balancing its multiple obligations to the Center in a prudent fashion.”
However, legally saving the center may prove easier than restoring it institutionally.
Trump still holds significant control over the Kennedy Center. He remains the chairperson of its board of trustees, while Matt Floca—a facilities expert appointed by Trump to lead the center’s planned renovations—manages the day-to-day operations within the building. Since an announcement from Trump in February, the staff has been preparing for the center to shut down for two years while most artistic operations cease.
Beatty, now 76, shared that the instability plaguing the Kennedy Center is precisely the very issue her lawsuit aimed to address. She emphasized that her legal challenge sought to protect three fundamental principles: America, the arts, and the rule of law. Since 2019, when she was appointed by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a congressionally designated member, Beatty has been a board member. She described the center’s governance before Trump as formal and collegial, with meetings held at the institution itself. All trustees were acknowledged by the chair and routinely invited to participate in discussions and votes.
However, this harmonious environment swiftly changed after Trump’s return to office and his decision to target the Kennedy Center as a key institution in reshaping Washington’s cultural landscape. Beatty described the rapid transformation as occurring in mere seconds. David Rubenstein, the Kennedy Center’s longtime chairperson, and President Deborah Rutter were ousted, leading to rushed and exclusionary meetings. She recalled the abrupt change, stating, “Donald Trump is the chair—bam! Unanimous.”
Beatty’s political career has been marked by her unwavering defiance. Before entering Congress in 2013, she made history as the first female Democrat House leader in Ohio. Later, she chaired the Congressional Black Caucus. Her national profile has been further solidified at the center of pivotal voting rights and racial justice battles. In 2020, she gained national attention after being pepper-sprayed by police during a Black Lives Matter protest in Columbus. The following year, she was arrested during a voting rights protest at the Capitol.
Thomas Massie (KY)
Tom Barrett (MI)
Warren Davidson (OH)
Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)
Republican US House of Representative members
Republican US House of Representative members
Resisters
Jun 4 - Four Republicans joined Democrats in voting to pass a resolution that aims to block President Donald Trump from ordering further strikes on Iran. This development reflects growing dissatisfaction with the war within the president’s own party.
While the resolution faces significant challenges before Congress can compel Trump to end hostilities, the 215-208 vote marks a historic moment. It’s the first time such a measure has successfully passed the House or Senate on a final vote since the strikes began in February.
This resolution follows a similar effort that advanced in the Senate last month. It intensifies the pressure on the Trump administration to find an exit strategy from the unpopular war that lacks congressional authorization and has led to soaring energy prices.
Here’s a closer look at the four Republicans who broke with their party and the reasons behind their decision:
Thomas Massie (Kentucky)
Massie has had a contentious relationship with Trump in the past year. He has consistently voted against Republican leadership on several key issues, including Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill. Additionally, he spearheaded the effort to secure the release of the government’s complete files on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
As a critic of U.S. military intervention overseas, Massie has long advocated for congressional approval before strikes in Iran. He has also clashed with the pro-Israel faction of the Republican Party. Last month, he lost his GOP primary to Ed Gallrein, a challenger backed by Trump. This matchup was seen as a crucial test of Trump’s influence within the Republican Party.
On Wednesday, Massie shared a post on X expressing his belief that the passage of the resolution he co-sponsored conveyed a clear message from the People’s House: “End this war.”
Tom Barrett (Michigan)
Barrett, a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for over two decades, has expressed frustration with the lack of a clearly defined mission or end date for U.S. military operations.
In April, he opposed a measure that aimed to block Trump’s orders for strikes on Iran. However, he later introduced legislation to end operations in Iran after the 60-day limit under the War Powers Resolution was reached.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Barrett emphasized that Congress holds the exclusive authority under the Constitution to declare war and authorize the use of force.
He explained that while the War Powers Act of 1973 delegates some of this authority to the president for a limited period, that authority has expired. Barrett’s support for the resolution aligns with his belief that Congress should now decide the scope of the mission and appropriate limits on the use of force in Iran.
Warren Davidson (Ohio)
Davidson, another veteran, has consistently advocated for clearly defined U.S. objectives in conflicts and the need for congressional approval in their execution.
In March, he and Massie voted with Democrats to attempt to halt the war in Iran. However, Davidson later aligned with his party in subsequent votes.
On Wednesday, he once again sided with Democrats. He emphasized the importance of defining the mission, authorizing it, and accomplishing it, as he wrote on social media.
Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania)
Fitzpatrick, a former FBI agent and federal prosecutor from Pennsylvania, has been a strong advocate for bipartisan decision-making in the House of Representatives. Previously, he voted against a resolution, but in May, he switched sides and voted with the Democrats after the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day deadline expired.
On Wednesday, Fitzpatrick emphasized the importance of Congress asserting its powers and adhering to the law. He expressed his belief that the process is straightforward and should involve bringing the matter to Congress for debate and a vote. Fitzpatrick believes that this is the proper way for the system to function.
While the resolution faces significant challenges before Congress can compel Trump to end hostilities, the 215-208 vote marks a historic moment. It’s the first time such a measure has successfully passed the House or Senate on a final vote since the strikes began in February.
This resolution follows a similar effort that advanced in the Senate last month. It intensifies the pressure on the Trump administration to find an exit strategy from the unpopular war that lacks congressional authorization and has led to soaring energy prices.
Here’s a closer look at the four Republicans who broke with their party and the reasons behind their decision:
Thomas Massie (Kentucky)
Massie has had a contentious relationship with Trump in the past year. He has consistently voted against Republican leadership on several key issues, including Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill. Additionally, he spearheaded the effort to secure the release of the government’s complete files on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
As a critic of U.S. military intervention overseas, Massie has long advocated for congressional approval before strikes in Iran. He has also clashed with the pro-Israel faction of the Republican Party. Last month, he lost his GOP primary to Ed Gallrein, a challenger backed by Trump. This matchup was seen as a crucial test of Trump’s influence within the Republican Party.
On Wednesday, Massie shared a post on X expressing his belief that the passage of the resolution he co-sponsored conveyed a clear message from the People’s House: “End this war.”
Tom Barrett (Michigan)
Barrett, a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for over two decades, has expressed frustration with the lack of a clearly defined mission or end date for U.S. military operations.
In April, he opposed a measure that aimed to block Trump’s orders for strikes on Iran. However, he later introduced legislation to end operations in Iran after the 60-day limit under the War Powers Resolution was reached.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Barrett emphasized that Congress holds the exclusive authority under the Constitution to declare war and authorize the use of force.
He explained that while the War Powers Act of 1973 delegates some of this authority to the president for a limited period, that authority has expired. Barrett’s support for the resolution aligns with his belief that Congress should now decide the scope of the mission and appropriate limits on the use of force in Iran.
Warren Davidson (Ohio)
Davidson, another veteran, has consistently advocated for clearly defined U.S. objectives in conflicts and the need for congressional approval in their execution.
In March, he and Massie voted with Democrats to attempt to halt the war in Iran. However, Davidson later aligned with his party in subsequent votes.
On Wednesday, he once again sided with Democrats. He emphasized the importance of defining the mission, authorizing it, and accomplishing it, as he wrote on social media.
Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania)
Fitzpatrick, a former FBI agent and federal prosecutor from Pennsylvania, has been a strong advocate for bipartisan decision-making in the House of Representatives. Previously, he voted against a resolution, but in May, he switched sides and voted with the Democrats after the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day deadline expired.
On Wednesday, Fitzpatrick emphasized the importance of Congress asserting its powers and adhering to the law. He expressed his belief that the process is straightforward and should involve bringing the matter to Congress for debate and a vote. Fitzpatrick believes that this is the proper way for the system to function.
Scott Pelley
American author and reporter for CBS News for more than 31 years
Resister
Jun 2 - CBS News experienced a fresh wave of turmoil on Monday when Scott Pelley, the “60 Minutes” correspondent, confronted the show’s newly appointed executive producer during a staff meeting. Pelley accused Bari Weiss, the network’s editor-in-chief, of “murdering” the long-standing Sunday news program.
In an extraordinary exchange, Mr. Pelley, his newscaster’s baritone occasionally trembling with anger, expressed doubts about Mr. Bilton’s qualifications for his new role and questioned the network’s commitment to the program’s future. This exchange was recorded and obtained by The New York Times.
The meeting, held at the program’s Midtown Manhattan headquarters at 10 a.m., was intended as a formal introduction to Mr. Bilton, a tech journalist and filmmaker who was appointed last week as part of a significant shake-up at “60 Minutes.” The shake-up involved the firing of Tanya Simon, the previous executive producer, and her deputy, along with Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega, two of the show’s correspondents. Mr. Pelley referred to this event as “Black Thursday.”
The meeting quickly descended into tension, not surprising given the months of strain between veteran journalists at “60 Minutes” and Ms. Weiss, an opinion journalist who had been a longtime critic of legacy media institutions before becoming the head of one last year. Ms. Weiss was appointed by David Ellison, a tech scion who took control of CBS’s parent company Paramount in a multibillion-dollar merger.
Mr. Bilton, who had never worked in traditional broadcast news, attempted to ease the anxieties of staff members who feared that he might fundamentally alter the decades-old DNA of the country’s top-rated news program. He also warned that the broadcast television industry, which nurtured “60 Minutes,” was rapidly becoming obsolete. Mr. Bilton likened the industry to an ice cube melting, emphasizing the need for the show to adapt. He expressed that Ms. Weiss, who had a deep love for the institution and “60 Minutes,” understood this challenge.
At that moment, Mr. Pelley interrupted the discussion. The correspondent accused Ms. Weiss of ruining “60 Minutes,” claiming she doesn’t care about the show and was brought in to destroy it.
Mr. Pelley criticized Ms. Weiss’s lack of qualifications for her job, stating that the changes she’s made at “Evening News” have been disastrous. He questioned why anyone should expect any improvement.
Mr. Bilton responded by asserting that he would demonstrate his plan to improve “60 Minutes” over the next two weeks. He expressed excitement about meeting with everyone, including Ms. Weiss.
Ms. Weiss was absent from the meeting. A CBS executive explained that Ms. Weiss had been prepared to attend but was asked not to due to the staff’s negative feelings about the firings.
Mr. Bilton aimed to help “60 Minutes” avoid the fate of outdated media stalwarts who failed to adapt, referencing Time magazine.
Mr. Bilton expressed deep concern for the institution, but Mr. Pelley interrupted him, saying, “Oh, please.”
Charles Forelle, a top deputy to Ms. Weiss, intervened and urged Mr. Pelley to be less rude to Mr. Bilton.
Mr. Pelley defended himself, stating that he wasn’t being rude and that Black Thursday was the rude part.
After Mr. Bilton left, the “60 Minutes” staff applauded Mr. Pelley.
In an extraordinary exchange, Mr. Pelley, his newscaster’s baritone occasionally trembling with anger, expressed doubts about Mr. Bilton’s qualifications for his new role and questioned the network’s commitment to the program’s future. This exchange was recorded and obtained by The New York Times.
The meeting, held at the program’s Midtown Manhattan headquarters at 10 a.m., was intended as a formal introduction to Mr. Bilton, a tech journalist and filmmaker who was appointed last week as part of a significant shake-up at “60 Minutes.” The shake-up involved the firing of Tanya Simon, the previous executive producer, and her deputy, along with Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega, two of the show’s correspondents. Mr. Pelley referred to this event as “Black Thursday.”
The meeting quickly descended into tension, not surprising given the months of strain between veteran journalists at “60 Minutes” and Ms. Weiss, an opinion journalist who had been a longtime critic of legacy media institutions before becoming the head of one last year. Ms. Weiss was appointed by David Ellison, a tech scion who took control of CBS’s parent company Paramount in a multibillion-dollar merger.
Mr. Bilton, who had never worked in traditional broadcast news, attempted to ease the anxieties of staff members who feared that he might fundamentally alter the decades-old DNA of the country’s top-rated news program. He also warned that the broadcast television industry, which nurtured “60 Minutes,” was rapidly becoming obsolete. Mr. Bilton likened the industry to an ice cube melting, emphasizing the need for the show to adapt. He expressed that Ms. Weiss, who had a deep love for the institution and “60 Minutes,” understood this challenge.
At that moment, Mr. Pelley interrupted the discussion. The correspondent accused Ms. Weiss of ruining “60 Minutes,” claiming she doesn’t care about the show and was brought in to destroy it.
Mr. Pelley criticized Ms. Weiss’s lack of qualifications for her job, stating that the changes she’s made at “Evening News” have been disastrous. He questioned why anyone should expect any improvement.
Mr. Bilton responded by asserting that he would demonstrate his plan to improve “60 Minutes” over the next two weeks. He expressed excitement about meeting with everyone, including Ms. Weiss.
Ms. Weiss was absent from the meeting. A CBS executive explained that Ms. Weiss had been prepared to attend but was asked not to due to the staff’s negative feelings about the firings.
Mr. Bilton aimed to help “60 Minutes” avoid the fate of outdated media stalwarts who failed to adapt, referencing Time magazine.
Mr. Bilton expressed deep concern for the institution, but Mr. Pelley interrupted him, saying, “Oh, please.”
Charles Forelle, a top deputy to Ms. Weiss, intervened and urged Mr. Pelley to be less rude to Mr. Bilton.
Mr. Pelley defended himself, stating that he wasn’t being rude and that Black Thursday was the rude part.
After Mr. Bilton left, the “60 Minutes” staff applauded Mr. Pelley.
Judge Kathleen Williams
US District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Resister
Jun 1 - A federal judge is seeking explanations regarding claims that former President Donald Trump misled her court by filing a lawsuit against the IRS as a cover for arranging a settlement that established a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund intended to compensate his political allies.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams initiated the inquiry on Friday, following the closure of the case the previous week. Based in Miami, Williams is an Obama-appointed judge who cited a petition from 35 former federal judges requesting her to reopen the case to determine whether Trump’s actions constituted “serious misconduct” and misuse of the judicial system.
This development contributes to a growing controversy that has garnered bipartisan criticism in Congress, multiple lawsuits aimed at halting the distribution of the “anti-weaponization” fund, and calls for further investigations by government watchdogs and the courts.
Earlier this year, Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, alleging harm from the 2019 and 2020 leak of his tax returns by a private contractor. The lawsuit raised immediate conflict-of-interest concerns, as the Justice Department and IRS—both under Trump’s appointees—would be defending against a lawsuit from their own head.
Before the case progressed, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a settlement. Instead of directly compensating Trump, the agreement established a $1.8 billion fund to pay those identified in the settlement as victims of government weaponization.
The announcement was met with enthusiasm by many individuals Trump pardoned for their roles in the January 6th Capitol attack, several of whom expressed plans to apply for payouts. Conversely, Capitol police officers and former Justice Department prosecutors involved in January 6th cases filed lawsuits to block the fund. Earlier Friday, another judge issued a two-week halt on its creation.
Trump’s legal team has yet to respond to requests for comment.
In her four-page order, Judge Williams hinted at the possibility of reopening the case. She cited the former judges’ assertion that Trump’s attorneys likely knew the lawsuit was baseless and filed it to secure a prearranged settlement.
Williams emphasized federal court rules that prohibit legal filings for improper purposes. She stressed that filing a frivolous lawsuit to coerce a settlement could be considered such a misuse.
The former judges also argued that Trump’s lawsuit appeared “clearly untimely,” exceeding the two-year statute of limitations for claims of unlawful disclosure of tax information.
While the settlement seemed to have been negotiated between Trump’s private lawyers and attorneys at the Justice Department and IRS, the judge’s order targets Trump, his sons, and his company—not the government. Notably, the government never filed a response to the lawsuit.
Williams also raised concerns that the settlement violated DOJ policies requiring agreements to be limited to the specific subject matter of the claim. She pointed out that an addendum waiving all current tax claims against Trump, his two eldest sons, and their business entities was signed only by Acting Attorney General Blanche.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams initiated the inquiry on Friday, following the closure of the case the previous week. Based in Miami, Williams is an Obama-appointed judge who cited a petition from 35 former federal judges requesting her to reopen the case to determine whether Trump’s actions constituted “serious misconduct” and misuse of the judicial system.
This development contributes to a growing controversy that has garnered bipartisan criticism in Congress, multiple lawsuits aimed at halting the distribution of the “anti-weaponization” fund, and calls for further investigations by government watchdogs and the courts.
Earlier this year, Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS, alleging harm from the 2019 and 2020 leak of his tax returns by a private contractor. The lawsuit raised immediate conflict-of-interest concerns, as the Justice Department and IRS—both under Trump’s appointees—would be defending against a lawsuit from their own head.
Before the case progressed, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a settlement. Instead of directly compensating Trump, the agreement established a $1.8 billion fund to pay those identified in the settlement as victims of government weaponization.
The announcement was met with enthusiasm by many individuals Trump pardoned for their roles in the January 6th Capitol attack, several of whom expressed plans to apply for payouts. Conversely, Capitol police officers and former Justice Department prosecutors involved in January 6th cases filed lawsuits to block the fund. Earlier Friday, another judge issued a two-week halt on its creation.
Trump’s legal team has yet to respond to requests for comment.
In her four-page order, Judge Williams hinted at the possibility of reopening the case. She cited the former judges’ assertion that Trump’s attorneys likely knew the lawsuit was baseless and filed it to secure a prearranged settlement.
Williams emphasized federal court rules that prohibit legal filings for improper purposes. She stressed that filing a frivolous lawsuit to coerce a settlement could be considered such a misuse.
The former judges also argued that Trump’s lawsuit appeared “clearly untimely,” exceeding the two-year statute of limitations for claims of unlawful disclosure of tax information.
While the settlement seemed to have been negotiated between Trump’s private lawyers and attorneys at the Justice Department and IRS, the judge’s order targets Trump, his sons, and his company—not the government. Notably, the government never filed a response to the lawsuit.
Williams also raised concerns that the settlement violated DOJ policies requiring agreements to be limited to the specific subject matter of the claim. She pointed out that an addendum waiving all current tax claims against Trump, his two eldest sons, and their business entities was signed only by Acting Attorney General Blanche.
Judge April Perry
U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Resister
May 31 - An Illinois federal judge sharply criticized prosecutors after charges against six protesters, known as the “Broadview Six,” were dismissed due to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, jury tampering, and attempts to mislead the court.
The six protesters—Michael Rabbitt, Katherine Marie Abughzaleh, Andre Martin, Catherine Sharp, Brian Straw, and Joselyn Walsh—faced misdemeanor charges stemming from a protest outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Broadview, Illinois.
According to Democracy Docket, Andrew Boutros, a prominent prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, admitted that prosecutors intentionally employed misleading tactics to present inaccurate information to a grand jury in an attempt to secure indictments against the protesters.
After reviewing transcripts from the grand jury proceedings, U.S. District Judge April Perry condemned the conduct revealed in the records.
Judge Perry stated, “I have never encountered the type of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I witnessed in those transcripts.”
The protest that led to the charges took place outside an ICE detention center, where demonstrators protested against immigration enforcement policies they believed unfairly targeted immigrants and expanded government surveillance. Protesters argued that efforts to reduce the immigrant population in the United States did not justify widespread arrests or monitoring of citizens and noncitizens alike.
According to Democracy Docket, the six protesters were accused of obstructing an ICE officer near the Broadview detention center, resulting in misdemeanor charges. While misdemeanors are less serious than felonies, convictions can still lead to penalties such as fines and up to one year in jail.
Supporters of the protesters argued that the case raised broader concerns about free speech and political dissent. They contended that individuals exercising their constitutional rights to protest ICE policies and speak out against government actions should not face retaliation through the criminal justice system.
Abughazaleh emphasized the significance of resisting efforts to silence political opposition.
Democracy Docket reported that Boutros informed U.S. District Judge April Perry that prosecutors had dismissed jurors who disagreed with the charges—a form of prosecutorial misconduct known as “vouching.”
Defense attorneys also alleged that members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office improperly communicated with grand jurors outside normal court procedures. Such contact is generally prohibited except in limited circumstances authorized by a judge to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.
In addition to allegations of improper contact with jurors and misleading representations to the court, defense attorneys accused prosecutors of attempting to conceal misconduct through unusual redactions in grand jury transcripts.
Defense attorneys argued in court filings that given the level of misconduct at issue and the brazenness of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for not immediately disclosing this level of misconduct to the Court or defense counsel, defense counsel has lost complete faith and confidence in the U.S. Attorney’s Office to do the right thing on its own.
The six protesters—Michael Rabbitt, Katherine Marie Abughzaleh, Andre Martin, Catherine Sharp, Brian Straw, and Joselyn Walsh—faced misdemeanor charges stemming from a protest outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Broadview, Illinois.
According to Democracy Docket, Andrew Boutros, a prominent prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, admitted that prosecutors intentionally employed misleading tactics to present inaccurate information to a grand jury in an attempt to secure indictments against the protesters.
After reviewing transcripts from the grand jury proceedings, U.S. District Judge April Perry condemned the conduct revealed in the records.
Judge Perry stated, “I have never encountered the type of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I witnessed in those transcripts.”
The protest that led to the charges took place outside an ICE detention center, where demonstrators protested against immigration enforcement policies they believed unfairly targeted immigrants and expanded government surveillance. Protesters argued that efforts to reduce the immigrant population in the United States did not justify widespread arrests or monitoring of citizens and noncitizens alike.
According to Democracy Docket, the six protesters were accused of obstructing an ICE officer near the Broadview detention center, resulting in misdemeanor charges. While misdemeanors are less serious than felonies, convictions can still lead to penalties such as fines and up to one year in jail.
Supporters of the protesters argued that the case raised broader concerns about free speech and political dissent. They contended that individuals exercising their constitutional rights to protest ICE policies and speak out against government actions should not face retaliation through the criminal justice system.
Abughazaleh emphasized the significance of resisting efforts to silence political opposition.
Democracy Docket reported that Boutros informed U.S. District Judge April Perry that prosecutors had dismissed jurors who disagreed with the charges—a form of prosecutorial misconduct known as “vouching.”
Defense attorneys also alleged that members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office improperly communicated with grand jurors outside normal court procedures. Such contact is generally prohibited except in limited circumstances authorized by a judge to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.
In addition to allegations of improper contact with jurors and misleading representations to the court, defense attorneys accused prosecutors of attempting to conceal misconduct through unusual redactions in grand jury transcripts.
Defense attorneys argued in court filings that given the level of misconduct at issue and the brazenness of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for not immediately disclosing this level of misconduct to the Court or defense counsel, defense counsel has lost complete faith and confidence in the U.S. Attorney’s Office to do the right thing on its own.
Judge Christopher R. "Casey" Cooper
U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Resister
May 30 - A federal judge issued an order on Friday, mandating the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to remove President Trump’s name from the building’s facade and all official branding. Additionally, the judge temporarily blocked the institution from shutting down this summer for renovations.
In response to the judge’s ruling, President Trump expressed his anger on social media, suggesting that he might abandon the Kennedy Center as one of his personal projects. He emphasized that unless he had the freedom to determine the center’s future, he had no interest in continuing what he perceived as a futile endeavor.
President Trump criticized Judge Cooper and the Radical Left for their preference for the Kennedy Center’s demise rather than allowing him to transform it into a place of pride for everyone, as he had done in various instances throughout his life.
Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the Federal District Court in Washington, ruled that the board’s decision to add President Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center violated a law enacted by Congress in 1964. This law explicitly stated that the institution was to be named after former President John F. Kennedy.
In his 94-page opinion, the judge reiterated that Congress had given the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress had the authority to change it. Consequently, the judge ordered the removal of the 18 letters added to the center’s front portico within two weeks.
The center’s board of trustees, predominantly aligned with Mr. Trump, made a decision in December to incorporate the president’s name into the performing arts center’s name. Less than a day later, new lettering was added to the building’s marble facade, now reading: “The Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”
The judge’s order was issued in response to a lawsuit filed by Representative Joyce Beatty, a Democrat from Ohio and an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center’s board. Beatty objected to both the renaming of the center and the plans to close it. Her legal team argued that the closure was a deliberate attempt to conceal the center’s declining ticket sales.
Judge Cooper found that the board had neglected to consider the potential impact on programming when deciding to shut down the center. He also emphasized the board’s legal obligation to maintain the center as a memorial to the late president. However, the judge’s order did not provide specific instructions for reinstating programming as the board reviews its renovation plans.
In a separate lawsuit, Judge Cooper, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, issued a ruling on Friday. While he did not block the center from commencing renovations, he did so after preservationist groups raised concerns about the lack of required permits for the renovations.
While a coalition of groups had argued that the administration seemed determined to transform the center in Mr. Trump’s image and potentially dismantle it entirely, Judge Cooper deemed this possibility too remote at the moment. However, he cautioned that he would reassess the situation if the facts on the ground changed, noting the lack of concrete details about the project’s scope.
The judge expressed concern that if the work proved more transformative than currently suggested or required permits that the center had yet to acknowledge or secure, the court’s legal analysis might take a different turn.
In his first term, Mr. Trump had avoided the Kennedy Center. However, in his second term, he has taken a significant step in taking over the institution. He appointed loyalists to the center’s board, who subsequently installed him as chairman. This led to a period of upheaval as many artists boycotted the increasingly politicized institution.
On Friday, Mr. Trump made a social media post indicating his interest in relinquishing responsibility for the Kennedy Center. He stated that he had instructed the Commerce Department to “transfer this failing Institution” to Congress. However, it was unclear what he meant. While the programming is managed by a nonprofit organization, Congress provides federal funding to maintain the building.
Judge Cooper emphasized that his decision did not prevent the center’s board from deciding to close the institution for renovations in the future. However, he urged the board to prepare itself with “sufficient information to make a considered, independent decision, taking into account its obligation to both maintain and operate” the arts venue and “its solemn duty to memorialize a fallen president.”
The judge ordered the parties to submit an update by June 5, outlining the next steps for proceeding.
In response to the judge’s ruling, President Trump expressed his anger on social media, suggesting that he might abandon the Kennedy Center as one of his personal projects. He emphasized that unless he had the freedom to determine the center’s future, he had no interest in continuing what he perceived as a futile endeavor.
President Trump criticized Judge Cooper and the Radical Left for their preference for the Kennedy Center’s demise rather than allowing him to transform it into a place of pride for everyone, as he had done in various instances throughout his life.
Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the Federal District Court in Washington, ruled that the board’s decision to add President Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center violated a law enacted by Congress in 1964. This law explicitly stated that the institution was to be named after former President John F. Kennedy.
In his 94-page opinion, the judge reiterated that Congress had given the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress had the authority to change it. Consequently, the judge ordered the removal of the 18 letters added to the center’s front portico within two weeks.
The center’s board of trustees, predominantly aligned with Mr. Trump, made a decision in December to incorporate the president’s name into the performing arts center’s name. Less than a day later, new lettering was added to the building’s marble facade, now reading: “The Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”
The judge’s order was issued in response to a lawsuit filed by Representative Joyce Beatty, a Democrat from Ohio and an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center’s board. Beatty objected to both the renaming of the center and the plans to close it. Her legal team argued that the closure was a deliberate attempt to conceal the center’s declining ticket sales.
Judge Cooper found that the board had neglected to consider the potential impact on programming when deciding to shut down the center. He also emphasized the board’s legal obligation to maintain the center as a memorial to the late president. However, the judge’s order did not provide specific instructions for reinstating programming as the board reviews its renovation plans.
In a separate lawsuit, Judge Cooper, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, issued a ruling on Friday. While he did not block the center from commencing renovations, he did so after preservationist groups raised concerns about the lack of required permits for the renovations.
While a coalition of groups had argued that the administration seemed determined to transform the center in Mr. Trump’s image and potentially dismantle it entirely, Judge Cooper deemed this possibility too remote at the moment. However, he cautioned that he would reassess the situation if the facts on the ground changed, noting the lack of concrete details about the project’s scope.
The judge expressed concern that if the work proved more transformative than currently suggested or required permits that the center had yet to acknowledge or secure, the court’s legal analysis might take a different turn.
In his first term, Mr. Trump had avoided the Kennedy Center. However, in his second term, he has taken a significant step in taking over the institution. He appointed loyalists to the center’s board, who subsequently installed him as chairman. This led to a period of upheaval as many artists boycotted the increasingly politicized institution.
On Friday, Mr. Trump made a social media post indicating his interest in relinquishing responsibility for the Kennedy Center. He stated that he had instructed the Commerce Department to “transfer this failing Institution” to Congress. However, it was unclear what he meant. While the programming is managed by a nonprofit organization, Congress provides federal funding to maintain the building.
Judge Cooper emphasized that his decision did not prevent the center’s board from deciding to close the institution for renovations in the future. However, he urged the board to prepare itself with “sufficient information to make a considered, independent decision, taking into account its obligation to both maintain and operate” the arts venue and “its solemn duty to memorialize a fallen president.”
The judge ordered the parties to submit an update by June 5, outlining the next steps for proceeding.
Judge Stanley Marcus
Senior Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District
Resister
May 26 - A panel of federal judges on Tuesday rejected Alabama’s attempt to implement a new voting map for the upcoming November midterm elections. The judges found that the districts discriminated against Black individuals and could not be used so close to the vote.
Alabama is likely to appeal this decision directly to the Supreme Court. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana congressional map designed to create two majority-Black House districts was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In response, Governor Kay Ivey, a Republican, has already scheduled special primaries in August for four House districts that would be affected by her state’s new congressional map.
This ruling further complicates the electoral landscape across the South. Republican-led legislatures have been rushing to implement new district lines following the Supreme Court’s weakening of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It also highlights how the ruling from the nation’s highest court has further complicated the interpretation of the landmark civil rights law by lower courts.
If the case reaches the Supreme Court, it will be the first significant test of the high court’s new standard for challenging congressional maps under the Voting Rights Act. In their ruling, the three federal judges acknowledged that they had considered the arguments through the lens of the Supreme Court’s recent Callais ruling but maintained that the state’s map intentionally discriminated against Black voters.
The panel of three judges expressed their inability to justify requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination. They also cautioned against causing additional confusion among voters by attempting to use a new map before the November elections.
The court acknowledged the gravity of their ruling but stated that they did not find the issue particularly complex or close.
A federal judge panel on Tuesday rejected Alabama’s attempt to implement a new voting map for the upcoming November midterm elections. This decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Judge Stanley Marcus, nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, along with Judges Anna M. Manasco and Terry F. Moorer, both appointed by President Trump, issued the decision. Judge Marcus typically presides over the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta.
While the decision was meticulously crafted to address specific questions regarding Alabama’s redistricting procedures, its implications could extend beyond the state. In South Carolina, state senators are currently deliberating on a new congressional map that could potentially eliminate the last majority-Black district in the state, even as early voting commences.
Kareem Crayton, a vice president at the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy center dedicated to voting and democracy, expressed concern that this decision serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities involved in attempting to implement a map amidst ongoing voting processes.
Spokespersons for the Alabama governor and the attorney general have yet to respond to requests for comment.
Alabama has been embroiled in litigation concerning its congressional map for several years. As a result, the state was prohibited from redistricting until after the 2030 census. Black voters have argued that the state has unfairly diminished their influence at the ballot box. Notably, over one-quarter of Alabama’s population is Black.
However, in June 2023, the court made a surprising decision that shocked many legal observers. The court sided with the argument that Alabama had violated the Voting Rights Act and was required to draw a second district with a majority of Black voters or come “close to it.”
Following this decision, lawmakers returned to Montgomery, the state capital, and proceeded to create a new map. However, they were cautious about potentially pitting incumbent Republicans against one another. Consequently, the legislature approved a map that increased the percentage of Black voters in one district to approximately 40 percent, up from around 30 percent.
A federal court panel overturned the map and mandated the creation of an independent special master to draw district lines. The master’s map was utilized in the 2024 election, leading to the election of Representative Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat. This marked a historic moment in Alabama, as it became the first state to elect two Black lawmakers to the House simultaneously. Consequently, the federal court upheld the map for the upcoming November elections.
In a statement on Tuesday morning, Mr. Figures acknowledged the progress made but emphasized the ongoing challenges in resolving the issue.
Following last month’s Supreme Court decision rejecting Louisiana’s congressional map, Republicans in Southern states seized the opportunity to redraw districts that had consistently elected Democrats, particularly those with significant Black voter blocs. This move intensified the ongoing gerrymandering battle initiated by President Trump and his allies in Texas.
In Alabama, state officials opted to utilize the 2023 map, a decision that the Supreme Court had previously cleared the way for earlier this month. However, the final decision remained with the federal panel of judges, the same one that had previously rejected the congressional map.
Alabama is likely to appeal this decision directly to the Supreme Court. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana congressional map designed to create two majority-Black House districts was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In response, Governor Kay Ivey, a Republican, has already scheduled special primaries in August for four House districts that would be affected by her state’s new congressional map.
This ruling further complicates the electoral landscape across the South. Republican-led legislatures have been rushing to implement new district lines following the Supreme Court’s weakening of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It also highlights how the ruling from the nation’s highest court has further complicated the interpretation of the landmark civil rights law by lower courts.
If the case reaches the Supreme Court, it will be the first significant test of the high court’s new standard for challenging congressional maps under the Voting Rights Act. In their ruling, the three federal judges acknowledged that they had considered the arguments through the lens of the Supreme Court’s recent Callais ruling but maintained that the state’s map intentionally discriminated against Black voters.
The panel of three judges expressed their inability to justify requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination. They also cautioned against causing additional confusion among voters by attempting to use a new map before the November elections.
The court acknowledged the gravity of their ruling but stated that they did not find the issue particularly complex or close.
A federal judge panel on Tuesday rejected Alabama’s attempt to implement a new voting map for the upcoming November midterm elections. This decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Judge Stanley Marcus, nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, along with Judges Anna M. Manasco and Terry F. Moorer, both appointed by President Trump, issued the decision. Judge Marcus typically presides over the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta.
While the decision was meticulously crafted to address specific questions regarding Alabama’s redistricting procedures, its implications could extend beyond the state. In South Carolina, state senators are currently deliberating on a new congressional map that could potentially eliminate the last majority-Black district in the state, even as early voting commences.
Kareem Crayton, a vice president at the Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy center dedicated to voting and democracy, expressed concern that this decision serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities involved in attempting to implement a map amidst ongoing voting processes.
Spokespersons for the Alabama governor and the attorney general have yet to respond to requests for comment.
Alabama has been embroiled in litigation concerning its congressional map for several years. As a result, the state was prohibited from redistricting until after the 2030 census. Black voters have argued that the state has unfairly diminished their influence at the ballot box. Notably, over one-quarter of Alabama’s population is Black.
However, in June 2023, the court made a surprising decision that shocked many legal observers. The court sided with the argument that Alabama had violated the Voting Rights Act and was required to draw a second district with a majority of Black voters or come “close to it.”
Following this decision, lawmakers returned to Montgomery, the state capital, and proceeded to create a new map. However, they were cautious about potentially pitting incumbent Republicans against one another. Consequently, the legislature approved a map that increased the percentage of Black voters in one district to approximately 40 percent, up from around 30 percent.
A federal court panel overturned the map and mandated the creation of an independent special master to draw district lines. The master’s map was utilized in the 2024 election, leading to the election of Representative Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat. This marked a historic moment in Alabama, as it became the first state to elect two Black lawmakers to the House simultaneously. Consequently, the federal court upheld the map for the upcoming November elections.
In a statement on Tuesday morning, Mr. Figures acknowledged the progress made but emphasized the ongoing challenges in resolving the issue.
Following last month’s Supreme Court decision rejecting Louisiana’s congressional map, Republicans in Southern states seized the opportunity to redraw districts that had consistently elected Democrats, particularly those with significant Black voter blocs. This move intensified the ongoing gerrymandering battle initiated by President Trump and his allies in Texas.
In Alabama, state officials opted to utilize the 2023 map, a decision that the Supreme Court had previously cleared the way for earlier this month. However, the final decision remained with the federal panel of judges, the same one that had previously rejected the congressional map.
Brian Morrissey
US Treasury Department General Counsel
Resister
May 19 - The Treasury Department’s top lawyer, Brian Morrissey, resigned on Monday following the announcement of a controversial settlement with President Trump. Morrissey, who joined the Trump administration last year as the Treasury Department’s general counsel, had previously worked at the agency and the Justice Department during Trump’s first term. He did not respond to requests for comment.
The settlement established a $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate individuals claiming unfair targeting by past administrations, potentially benefiting Trump political allies. The fund will be managed by a five-person commission appointed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and removable by Trump.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), part of the Treasury Department, was the defendant in a case dropped as part of the settlement. Trump had personally sued the IRS for $10 billion over an illegal leak of his tax returns by a contractor.
The settlement was signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Frank Bisignano, the IRS’s chief executive. A Treasury spokesman praised Morrissey’s service and wished him well. The New York Times had previously reported his departure.
The Treasury Department also has a key role in approving the use of the government’s judgment fund, a permanent, uncapped fund for settling lawsuits. A Justice Department memo stated that the administration will provide the Treasury Department with the necessary information to make payments to the new settlement fund within 60 days.
Before joining the Trump administration, Morrissey was a partner at the law firm Sidley Austin.
The settlement established a $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate individuals claiming unfair targeting by past administrations, potentially benefiting Trump political allies. The fund will be managed by a five-person commission appointed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and removable by Trump.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), part of the Treasury Department, was the defendant in a case dropped as part of the settlement. Trump had personally sued the IRS for $10 billion over an illegal leak of his tax returns by a contractor.
The settlement was signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Frank Bisignano, the IRS’s chief executive. A Treasury spokesman praised Morrissey’s service and wished him well. The New York Times had previously reported his departure.
The Treasury Department also has a key role in approving the use of the government’s judgment fund, a permanent, uncapped fund for settling lawsuits. A Justice Department memo stated that the administration will provide the Treasury Department with the necessary information to make payments to the new settlement fund within 60 days.
Before joining the Trump administration, Morrissey was a partner at the law firm Sidley Austin.
Lisa Murkowski
US Senator (R) from Alaska
Resister
May 14 - For the seventh time this year, Senate Democrats attempted to push for a vote to end the Iran war, but Senate Republicans blocked it once again. However, a notable shift occurred during Wednesday’s vote: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voted with the Democrats for the first time, indicating growing GOP opposition to President Trump’s potential war in Iran without a clear timeline, mission, or taxpayer cost.
Murkowski explained her change in vote, citing two key developments: Trump has exceeded the statutory 60-day limit for waging war without congressional approval, and the administration has declared that U.S. military hostilities have ended. She stated, “The administration’s own position removes any justification for keeping our servicemembers in harm’s way without congressional authorization.” Murkowski emphasized that if hostilities resume, the administration must seek congressional approval and present its case to Congress and the American people. She also vowed to oppose any attempts to redefine ‘hostilities’ to allow indefinite war without congressional consent.
Murkowski is now the third Republican senator to join Democrats in requiring Trump to obtain congressional approval before proceeding with military actions in Iran, alongside Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Despite this, the resolution by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) failed in a 49-50 vote, with Democrat Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania casting the deciding no vote. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) was absent from the vote.
A spokesperson for Fetterman did not comment, but he has consistently opposed Democrats’ war powers measures, suggesting they are against Trump. Democrats intend to continue pushing for these votes, highlighting the need to restrain Trump in Iran and asserting Congress’s constitutional role in declaring wars. Republicans generally support the president’s authority to act without Congress, though some are growing uneasy as the conflict continues.
“Until this illegal war is over, Democrats will keep forcing votes to hold Senate Republicans accountable for bending the knee to Trump,” Merkley stated. These votes are becoming increasingly challenging for Republicans, as more Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the war. GOP senators, particularly those facing tough reelection battles, must decide whether to support Trump or align with their constituents’ desires.
Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Murkowski’s colleague, opposed her in the vote, contributing to the resolution’s failure. Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, commended Murkowski for her vote to end the war, noting her questioning of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about the need for congressional authorization, to which Hegseth responded negatively.
Costello expressed optimism that Congress will eventually fulfill its responsibility and end the war. Wednesday’s vote was the first since Trump exceeded his 60-day deadline for acting without Congress, which was May 1. Federal law allows a president to deploy troops for up to 60 days without congressional approval, after which the use of armed forces must cease. Trump can extend this by 30 days by certifying the need for continued force to Congress, though it is unclear if he has done so.
Time is limited for Republicans, who have largely allowed Trump to test the limits of acting without them. Once the 30-day extension expires on May 31, Trump will need congressional approval to continue. Democrats are encouraged by Murkowski’s vote, viewing it as progress. “Yeah!” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told HuffPost. “Bit by bit, we’re gonna stop this war.”
Murkowski explained her change in vote, citing two key developments: Trump has exceeded the statutory 60-day limit for waging war without congressional approval, and the administration has declared that U.S. military hostilities have ended. She stated, “The administration’s own position removes any justification for keeping our servicemembers in harm’s way without congressional authorization.” Murkowski emphasized that if hostilities resume, the administration must seek congressional approval and present its case to Congress and the American people. She also vowed to oppose any attempts to redefine ‘hostilities’ to allow indefinite war without congressional consent.
Murkowski is now the third Republican senator to join Democrats in requiring Trump to obtain congressional approval before proceeding with military actions in Iran, alongside Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Despite this, the resolution by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) failed in a 49-50 vote, with Democrat Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania casting the deciding no vote. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) was absent from the vote.
A spokesperson for Fetterman did not comment, but he has consistently opposed Democrats’ war powers measures, suggesting they are against Trump. Democrats intend to continue pushing for these votes, highlighting the need to restrain Trump in Iran and asserting Congress’s constitutional role in declaring wars. Republicans generally support the president’s authority to act without Congress, though some are growing uneasy as the conflict continues.
“Until this illegal war is over, Democrats will keep forcing votes to hold Senate Republicans accountable for bending the knee to Trump,” Merkley stated. These votes are becoming increasingly challenging for Republicans, as more Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the war. GOP senators, particularly those facing tough reelection battles, must decide whether to support Trump or align with their constituents’ desires.
Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Murkowski’s colleague, opposed her in the vote, contributing to the resolution’s failure. Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, commended Murkowski for her vote to end the war, noting her questioning of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about the need for congressional authorization, to which Hegseth responded negatively.
Costello expressed optimism that Congress will eventually fulfill its responsibility and end the war. Wednesday’s vote was the first since Trump exceeded his 60-day deadline for acting without Congress, which was May 1. Federal law allows a president to deploy troops for up to 60 days without congressional approval, after which the use of armed forces must cease. Trump can extend this by 30 days by certifying the need for continued force to Congress, though it is unclear if he has done so.
Time is limited for Republicans, who have largely allowed Trump to test the limits of acting without them. Once the 30-day extension expires on May 31, Trump will need congressional approval to continue. Democrats are encouraged by Murkowski’s vote, viewing it as progress. “Yeah!” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told HuffPost. “Bit by bit, we’re gonna stop this war.”
Georgia State Election Board
Georgia state agency in charge of supervising elections
Resister
April 30 - The State Election Board rejected a proposal to require Georgia’s 159 counties to replace voting touchscreens with hand-filled paper ballots, with a 4-1 vote against the plan. The Republican-controlled board was warned that such a move could lead to lawsuits. The General Assembly adjourned last month, leaving uncertainty about whether lawmakers will return in time to meet a July 1 deadline to switch from QR code-based vote counting to another method. State Election Board Chair John Fervier, appointed by Gov. Brian Kemp, stated that the board lacks the authority to make this change.
Lawmakers left unresolved one of the major issues for election administrators, failing to fund changes to the current system or replace it to comply with the deadline. The voting law passed two years ago, which set the July deadline, was intended to boost election trust among some Republicans after President Donald Trump’s narrow 2020 loss. However, it has instead led to more confusion and uncertainty about the upcoming midterms.
The board’s decision temporarily alleviates concerns among local election officials who fear that switching to hand-marked paper ballots before the 2026 midterms would create administrative challenges and disruptions. The proposal by election security advocates aimed to make the backup system the primary voting method temporarily. Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, argued that the current system is illegal, even without the deadline. Sara Tindall Ghazal, the board’s sole Democrat, opposed the proposal, stating that adopting it would imply the election system has been unlawful since its inception.
In 2024, the Georgia Supreme Court invalidated several controversial election rule changes made by three conservative Republicans on the board, ruling that the appointed board cannot create policies without legislative support.
Lawmakers left unresolved one of the major issues for election administrators, failing to fund changes to the current system or replace it to comply with the deadline. The voting law passed two years ago, which set the July deadline, was intended to boost election trust among some Republicans after President Donald Trump’s narrow 2020 loss. However, it has instead led to more confusion and uncertainty about the upcoming midterms.
The board’s decision temporarily alleviates concerns among local election officials who fear that switching to hand-marked paper ballots before the 2026 midterms would create administrative challenges and disruptions. The proposal by election security advocates aimed to make the backup system the primary voting method temporarily. Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, argued that the current system is illegal, even without the deadline. Sara Tindall Ghazal, the board’s sole Democrat, opposed the proposal, stating that adopting it would imply the election system has been unlawful since its inception.
In 2024, the Georgia Supreme Court invalidated several controversial election rule changes made by three conservative Republicans on the board, ruling that the appointed board cannot create policies without legislative support.
Senator Thom Tillis
US Senator from North Caroline (R)
Resister
April 30 - Thom Tillis successfully opposed President Donald Trump’s administration in a prolonged effort to halt the criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, ultimately prevailing. Now, he is urging Trump’s advisors to heed his warning that he will not support any attorney general nominee who condones the events of January 6, 2021. “Hopefully they’ll take me at my word when I say anybody who equivocated on the Jan. 6 rioters, I just can’t support,” the North Carolina Republican stated regarding Justice Department nominees.
Tillis holds significant influence as a member of the Judiciary Committee, where Republicans have a narrow one-vote majority, allowing him to effectively veto nominations. He exercised this power in the Senate Banking Committee against potential Powell successor Kevin Warsh until Wednesday, when he voted to allow Warsh’s confirmation process to proceed next month. This decision followed a three-month deadlock over the Justice Department’s investigation into whether Powell misled Congress during a Senate hearing last year—a probe Tillis criticized as an attempt by Trump advisors to undermine the Federal Reserve’s independence.
A series of last-minute negotiations led to U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announcing last week that the investigation was being closed. Tillis described in an interview how he “spoke to people in DOJ several times over the course of a few days” around the announcement and mentioned he was “also sort of bouncing off where Chair Powell was, too,” though he did not confirm direct communication with Powell. This was a rare instance of a sitting senator effectively using leverage against his own party’s administration and succeeding.
“Every single member of the conference has the same option,” Tillis said about whether other GOP colleagues could follow his approach. “I’ve seen people do silly things like blanket holds and stuff like that that are not sustainable.”
There are differences between the Powell situation and the current vacancy at the Justice Department. The Fed chair negotiations were influenced by a May 15 deadline for Powell’s term, Trump’s determination to replace him, and the administration’s realization that Tillis was resolute in his pledge to maintain his hold as long as the investigation continued. “I think they understood if we didn’t get it done today, tomorrow, this week, that he wouldn’t be seated by the time the term expires,” Tillis said of the administration.
There is less urgency to fill the AG position. Todd Blanche, confirmed last year as deputy attorney general, is currently serving as acting attorney general and is legally allowed to serve until at least late October. Some argue he could potentially serve indefinitely, citing the tenure of former Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su, who served as acting secretary for nearly two years under former President Joe Biden. This could allow Trump to wait out Tillis, who is retiring and will leave his seat in January, though it risks a potential Democratic takeover of the Senate majority in the midterms.
Tillis stated on Wednesday that he would remain true to his principles regardless of the outcome of the attorney general vacancy. He emphasized the importance of his fight to protect Powell and its resolution this week for ensuring the Federal Reserve’s independence. Tillis is in a unique position due to his upcoming retirement, which frees him from political consequences, and his membership on key committees that grant him significant influence over several of the administration’s priorities. He has been increasingly vocal about decisions within the Trump administration and from party factions he disagrees with, though he stresses that he maintains a respectful relationship with Trump and wishes for his success.
Tillis holds significant influence as a member of the Judiciary Committee, where Republicans have a narrow one-vote majority, allowing him to effectively veto nominations. He exercised this power in the Senate Banking Committee against potential Powell successor Kevin Warsh until Wednesday, when he voted to allow Warsh’s confirmation process to proceed next month. This decision followed a three-month deadlock over the Justice Department’s investigation into whether Powell misled Congress during a Senate hearing last year—a probe Tillis criticized as an attempt by Trump advisors to undermine the Federal Reserve’s independence.
A series of last-minute negotiations led to U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announcing last week that the investigation was being closed. Tillis described in an interview how he “spoke to people in DOJ several times over the course of a few days” around the announcement and mentioned he was “also sort of bouncing off where Chair Powell was, too,” though he did not confirm direct communication with Powell. This was a rare instance of a sitting senator effectively using leverage against his own party’s administration and succeeding.
“Every single member of the conference has the same option,” Tillis said about whether other GOP colleagues could follow his approach. “I’ve seen people do silly things like blanket holds and stuff like that that are not sustainable.”
There are differences between the Powell situation and the current vacancy at the Justice Department. The Fed chair negotiations were influenced by a May 15 deadline for Powell’s term, Trump’s determination to replace him, and the administration’s realization that Tillis was resolute in his pledge to maintain his hold as long as the investigation continued. “I think they understood if we didn’t get it done today, tomorrow, this week, that he wouldn’t be seated by the time the term expires,” Tillis said of the administration.
There is less urgency to fill the AG position. Todd Blanche, confirmed last year as deputy attorney general, is currently serving as acting attorney general and is legally allowed to serve until at least late October. Some argue he could potentially serve indefinitely, citing the tenure of former Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su, who served as acting secretary for nearly two years under former President Joe Biden. This could allow Trump to wait out Tillis, who is retiring and will leave his seat in January, though it risks a potential Democratic takeover of the Senate majority in the midterms.
Tillis stated on Wednesday that he would remain true to his principles regardless of the outcome of the attorney general vacancy. He emphasized the importance of his fight to protect Powell and its resolution this week for ensuring the Federal Reserve’s independence. Tillis is in a unique position due to his upcoming retirement, which frees him from political consequences, and his membership on key committees that grant him significant influence over several of the administration’s priorities. He has been increasingly vocal about decisions within the Trump administration and from party factions he disagrees with, though he stresses that he maintains a respectful relationship with Trump and wishes for his success.
Senator Rand Paul
US Senator from Kentucky (R)
Resister
April 27 - Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) expressed his frustration on Wednesday, stating that he was the sole Republican lawmaker who had crossed the aisle earlier that day to join Democrats in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to pass a war powers resolution. This resolution aimed to curb President Donald Trump’s ongoing war on Iran.
During an appearance on “The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle” on MS NOW, Paul elaborated on the historical context of the debate surrounding the authorization of military force when America was founded. He emphasized that the founders unanimously agreed that such authorization should necessitate a majority vote in Congress.
Paul reiterated that the constitutional framework for waging war is to follow this established procedure. However, he also highlighted the importance of considering the existence of an imminent threat to international security before resorting to military action.
The Kentucky Republican further expressed his belief that the ongoing war has weakened the nation. He pointed out that excessive spending and the resulting debt pose a more significant threat to the country’s security than external threats.
Wednesday marked the fifth unsuccessful attempt by Democrats to pass a war powers resolution since the conflict began in February. While Paul joined Democrats in voting in favor of the resolution, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the only Democrat who voted against it.
Paul explained on MS NOW that the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973 mandates a statutory 60-day deadline for a U.S. president to cease the use of military force unless Congress formally declares war. He noted that this deadline is rapidly approaching.
Paul estimated that the deadline is approximately 50 days away, suggesting that the resolution may be revisited within a week or two. He expressed optimism that if the resolution is brought up after the 60-day deadline, four or five other Republicans might join the vote, potentially securing a majority.
Paul has publicly broken with Trump on several issues over the past year, most notably regarding his use of lethal U.S. airstrikes on alleged drug boats in Caribbean and Pacific waters. In October, the constitutional conservative strongly criticized these attacks, calling them “summary execution.”
Paul explained to Ruhle that a majority vote after 60 days would send a more powerful message that the president cannot unilaterally wage war. He also pointed out that Trump could simply veto the war powers hurdle, which would then require a two-thirds vote to overturn.
Paul acknowledged the difficulty of stopping a president but emphasized the importance of reforming emergency powers. He believes that emergency powers should automatically expire unless affirmatively approved, requiring a simple majority vote.
While the Republican senator acknowledged that there is a part of Trump who genuinely wants the war to end and is aware of its devastating economic impact, Paul also criticized Trump’s genocidal rhetoric in threatening to destroy Iranian civilization.
Paul concluded by stating that negotiation is the only viable solution.
During an appearance on “The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle” on MS NOW, Paul elaborated on the historical context of the debate surrounding the authorization of military force when America was founded. He emphasized that the founders unanimously agreed that such authorization should necessitate a majority vote in Congress.
Paul reiterated that the constitutional framework for waging war is to follow this established procedure. However, he also highlighted the importance of considering the existence of an imminent threat to international security before resorting to military action.
The Kentucky Republican further expressed his belief that the ongoing war has weakened the nation. He pointed out that excessive spending and the resulting debt pose a more significant threat to the country’s security than external threats.
Wednesday marked the fifth unsuccessful attempt by Democrats to pass a war powers resolution since the conflict began in February. While Paul joined Democrats in voting in favor of the resolution, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the only Democrat who voted against it.
Paul explained on MS NOW that the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973 mandates a statutory 60-day deadline for a U.S. president to cease the use of military force unless Congress formally declares war. He noted that this deadline is rapidly approaching.
Paul estimated that the deadline is approximately 50 days away, suggesting that the resolution may be revisited within a week or two. He expressed optimism that if the resolution is brought up after the 60-day deadline, four or five other Republicans might join the vote, potentially securing a majority.
Paul has publicly broken with Trump on several issues over the past year, most notably regarding his use of lethal U.S. airstrikes on alleged drug boats in Caribbean and Pacific waters. In October, the constitutional conservative strongly criticized these attacks, calling them “summary execution.”
Paul explained to Ruhle that a majority vote after 60 days would send a more powerful message that the president cannot unilaterally wage war. He also pointed out that Trump could simply veto the war powers hurdle, which would then require a two-thirds vote to overturn.
Paul acknowledged the difficulty of stopping a president but emphasized the importance of reforming emergency powers. He believes that emergency powers should automatically expire unless affirmatively approved, requiring a simple majority vote.
While the Republican senator acknowledged that there is a part of Trump who genuinely wants the war to end and is aware of its devastating economic impact, Paul also criticized Trump’s genocidal rhetoric in threatening to destroy Iranian civilization.
Paul concluded by stating that negotiation is the only viable solution.
Maria Medetis Long
District Attorney for the Southern District of Florida
Resister
April 18 - A senior federal prosecutor in Miami, Maria Medetis Long, has withdrawn from an investigation into John O. Brennan, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This decision stems from concerns about the legal viability of a politically charged case that the Trump administration officials have attempted to expedite, according to individuals familiar with the matter.
Ms. Medetis Long is a seasoned official who oversees national security investigations for the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of Florida. Notably, the top prosecutor in that office, Jason A. Reding Quiñones, is a staunch Trump supporter. He has been leading a comprehensive inquiry into the president’s perceived political adversaries, including Mr. Brennan.
The precise circumstances surrounding Ms. Medetis Long’s departure from the case remain unclear. However, she informed lawyers for various individuals who had received subpoenas or interview requests that she was no longer involved in the investigation. Additionally, Mr. Reding Quiñones has communicated to senior Justice Department officials his intention to take action in the coming weeks. This action may involve requesting a grand jury to indict Mr. Brennan, as per those individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
The investigation into Mr. Brennan holds significant importance as an early test for the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche. President Trump elevated Mr. Blanche to the top of the Justice Department after firing Pam Bondi this month. Mr. Trump reportedly expressed frustration with Ms. Bondi’s inability to pursue more indictments against his perceived adversaries.
According to individuals close to Mr. Blanche, he has communicated his intention to expedite the prosecution of several Trump targets compared to Ms. Bondi. These targets include Mr. Brennan, the Democratic fund-raising group ActBlue, and a former White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson. The president has accused Ms. Hutchinson of lying about his actions on January 6, 2021.
The Justice Department press office acknowledged the removal of Ms. Medetis Long from the case but emphasized that changing members of legal teams is a standard practice.
The Brennan investigation is not the first inquiry into Mr. Trump’s adversaries to face internal dissent. In September, Erik S. Siebert, another career prosecutor, was dismissed as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after refusing to seek indictments against two individuals who had violated Mr. Trump’s orders: James B. Comey Jr., the former FBI director, and Letitia James, the New York attorney general.
As the lead prosecutor in the Brennan inquiry, Ms. Medetis Long issued a series of grand jury subpoenas to Mr. Brennan and other former federal officials involved in an intelligence community assessment of Russia’s attempt to influence the 2016 presidential campaign. The assessment concluded that Moscow aimed to enhance Mr. Trump’s chances of winning, which has long irked Mr. Trump and his supporters.
Ms. Medetis Long is a seasoned official who oversees national security investigations for the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of Florida. Notably, the top prosecutor in that office, Jason A. Reding Quiñones, is a staunch Trump supporter. He has been leading a comprehensive inquiry into the president’s perceived political adversaries, including Mr. Brennan.
The precise circumstances surrounding Ms. Medetis Long’s departure from the case remain unclear. However, she informed lawyers for various individuals who had received subpoenas or interview requests that she was no longer involved in the investigation. Additionally, Mr. Reding Quiñones has communicated to senior Justice Department officials his intention to take action in the coming weeks. This action may involve requesting a grand jury to indict Mr. Brennan, as per those individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
The investigation into Mr. Brennan holds significant importance as an early test for the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche. President Trump elevated Mr. Blanche to the top of the Justice Department after firing Pam Bondi this month. Mr. Trump reportedly expressed frustration with Ms. Bondi’s inability to pursue more indictments against his perceived adversaries.
According to individuals close to Mr. Blanche, he has communicated his intention to expedite the prosecution of several Trump targets compared to Ms. Bondi. These targets include Mr. Brennan, the Democratic fund-raising group ActBlue, and a former White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson. The president has accused Ms. Hutchinson of lying about his actions on January 6, 2021.
The Justice Department press office acknowledged the removal of Ms. Medetis Long from the case but emphasized that changing members of legal teams is a standard practice.
The Brennan investigation is not the first inquiry into Mr. Trump’s adversaries to face internal dissent. In September, Erik S. Siebert, another career prosecutor, was dismissed as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after refusing to seek indictments against two individuals who had violated Mr. Trump’s orders: James B. Comey Jr., the former FBI director, and Letitia James, the New York attorney general.
As the lead prosecutor in the Brennan inquiry, Ms. Medetis Long issued a series of grand jury subpoenas to Mr. Brennan and other former federal officials involved in an intelligence community assessment of Russia’s attempt to influence the 2016 presidential campaign. The assessment concluded that Moscow aimed to enhance Mr. Trump’s chances of winning, which has long irked Mr. Trump and his supporters.
California Supreme Court
The State's Highest Court
Resister
April 9 - The California Supreme Court has ordered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco to halt his election probe – and preserve the ballots he’s seized – as it weighs a case challenging his actions, multiple outlets reported.
Earlier this year, Bianco, who’s also a Republican candidate for California governor, seized more than 650,000 ballots cast in a 2025 special election involving a redistricting ballot measure. He argued that he did so to investigate alleged counting discrepancies that have also been raised by a conservative group. Election officials, meanwhile, have disputed these claims.
Bianco’s actions have drawn multiple lawsuits, including from California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has argued that the sheriff lacks legal grounds for the probe and is sowing distrust in elections by pursuing it. Bianco’s investigation into claims of alleged fraud also echoes similar unfounded claims President Donald Trump has long made about the 2020 election.
The California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would hear Bonta’s challenge and that Bianco was required to cease his investigation while it considered the suit and “preserve all seized items.”
In a video posted to Instagram on Wednesday, Bianco said that he plans to continue advocating for the inquiry.
“We are still at the hold of a court, so we are not allowed to progress with the counting of the ballots, and we’ll just continue fighting for this for you,” he said.
Bianco told The Washington Post that he would think about seizing the ballots in California’s upcoming gubernatorial primary, too, if questions emerged about the way that contest was handled.
Both Bonta and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) welcomed the court’s order on Wednesday.
“Today’s decision is a victory for democracy and the rule of law,” Newsom said in a statement on social media. “This rogue sheriff chased conspiracy theories, tried to undermine our elections, and got the ruling he deserved. Trump and MAGA’s election denialism is a cancer, a danger to our democracy, and it must be stopped.”
Earlier this year, Bianco, who’s also a Republican candidate for California governor, seized more than 650,000 ballots cast in a 2025 special election involving a redistricting ballot measure. He argued that he did so to investigate alleged counting discrepancies that have also been raised by a conservative group. Election officials, meanwhile, have disputed these claims.
Bianco’s actions have drawn multiple lawsuits, including from California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has argued that the sheriff lacks legal grounds for the probe and is sowing distrust in elections by pursuing it. Bianco’s investigation into claims of alleged fraud also echoes similar unfounded claims President Donald Trump has long made about the 2020 election.
The California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would hear Bonta’s challenge and that Bianco was required to cease his investigation while it considered the suit and “preserve all seized items.”
In a video posted to Instagram on Wednesday, Bianco said that he plans to continue advocating for the inquiry.
“We are still at the hold of a court, so we are not allowed to progress with the counting of the ballots, and we’ll just continue fighting for this for you,” he said.
Bianco told The Washington Post that he would think about seizing the ballots in California’s upcoming gubernatorial primary, too, if questions emerged about the way that contest was handled.
Both Bonta and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) welcomed the court’s order on Wednesday.
“Today’s decision is a victory for democracy and the rule of law,” Newsom said in a statement on social media. “This rogue sheriff chased conspiracy theories, tried to undermine our elections, and got the ruling he deserved. Trump and MAGA’s election denialism is a cancer, a danger to our democracy, and it must be stopped.”
Judge Richard J. Leon
District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Resister
April 1 - A federal judge issued an order on Tuesday, halting construction on President Trump’s proposed White House ballroom. This ballroom will replace the demolished East Wing. The judge emphasized that construction must cease until Congress approves the project.
This decision marks a significant setback for the president’s ambitious efforts to redesign the White House and Washington. It follows months of litigation in front of Judge Richard J. Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush. Judge Leon had previously declined to intervene in the matter.
In a 35-page opinion, Judge Leon expressed concerns that Mr. Trump lacked the authority to replace entire sections of the White House without consulting Congress. These changes could have lasting effects for generations.
Judge Leon’s opinion was punctuated by 19 exclamation points and reiterated his longstanding concerns raised in court. He questioned the administration’s shifting and questionable accounts of who was in charge of the project and the authority granted to accept private donations for its funding.
Judge Leon emphasized the importance of Congress’s approval for the project. He stated that construction must cease until Congress authorizes it through statutory means. However, he also expressed optimism that Congress could authorize the continued construction of the ballroom project.
Judge Leon explained that if the White House sought congressional approval, the legislature would retain its authority over the nation’s property and oversee government spending. He added that the National Trust’s interests in a constitutional and lawful process would be upheld, benefiting the American people by ensuring that the branches of government exercise their constitutionally prescribed roles.
It’s important to note that this decision is technically temporary. It serves as a preliminary injunction, barring further construction while the litigation continues. Additionally, Judge Leon paused his ruling for two weeks to allow the government to appeal the decision.
The Trump administration promptly filed an appeal on Tuesday, just hours after the ruling.
Shortly after a public event at the White House, Mr. Trump delivered a lengthy defense of the project. He argued that it was no different from previous renovation projects at the campus that were completed without consulting lawmakers. He emphasized the necessity of making national security improvements.
Mr. Trump asserted that congressional approval was not required to construct a ballroom.
Judge Leon’s ruling indicated that he was satisfied with the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s (NTHP), a nonprofit chartered by Congress to protect America’s historic buildings, for presenting a viable challenge to the project despite several setbacks.
In December and again in February, Judge Leon declined to intervene and deferred to the Trump administration. The administration argued that halting the project would leave an open construction site adjacent to the president’s residence, hindering basic work at the White House and potentially compromising national security.
Lawyers representing the government also claimed that the project falls within the president’s personal authority to modernize or enhance the White House grounds. Mr. Trump initiated construction of the project shortly after demolishing the East Wing in October, asserting the need for a ballroom to accommodate larger indoor events without encroaching on the South Lawn.
However, at every stage, Judge Leon consistently disagreed with Mr. Trump’s position.
This decision marks a significant setback for the president’s ambitious efforts to redesign the White House and Washington. It follows months of litigation in front of Judge Richard J. Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush. Judge Leon had previously declined to intervene in the matter.
In a 35-page opinion, Judge Leon expressed concerns that Mr. Trump lacked the authority to replace entire sections of the White House without consulting Congress. These changes could have lasting effects for generations.
Judge Leon’s opinion was punctuated by 19 exclamation points and reiterated his longstanding concerns raised in court. He questioned the administration’s shifting and questionable accounts of who was in charge of the project and the authority granted to accept private donations for its funding.
Judge Leon emphasized the importance of Congress’s approval for the project. He stated that construction must cease until Congress authorizes it through statutory means. However, he also expressed optimism that Congress could authorize the continued construction of the ballroom project.
Judge Leon explained that if the White House sought congressional approval, the legislature would retain its authority over the nation’s property and oversee government spending. He added that the National Trust’s interests in a constitutional and lawful process would be upheld, benefiting the American people by ensuring that the branches of government exercise their constitutionally prescribed roles.
It’s important to note that this decision is technically temporary. It serves as a preliminary injunction, barring further construction while the litigation continues. Additionally, Judge Leon paused his ruling for two weeks to allow the government to appeal the decision.
The Trump administration promptly filed an appeal on Tuesday, just hours after the ruling.
Shortly after a public event at the White House, Mr. Trump delivered a lengthy defense of the project. He argued that it was no different from previous renovation projects at the campus that were completed without consulting lawmakers. He emphasized the necessity of making national security improvements.
Mr. Trump asserted that congressional approval was not required to construct a ballroom.
Judge Leon’s ruling indicated that he was satisfied with the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s (NTHP), a nonprofit chartered by Congress to protect America’s historic buildings, for presenting a viable challenge to the project despite several setbacks.
In December and again in February, Judge Leon declined to intervene and deferred to the Trump administration. The administration argued that halting the project would leave an open construction site adjacent to the president’s residence, hindering basic work at the White House and potentially compromising national security.
Lawyers representing the government also claimed that the project falls within the president’s personal authority to modernize or enhance the White House grounds. Mr. Trump initiated construction of the project shortly after demolishing the East Wing in October, asserting the need for a ballroom to accommodate larger indoor events without encroaching on the South Lawn.
However, at every stage, Judge Leon consistently disagreed with Mr. Trump’s position.
Email Us With Your Ideas and Feedback xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Send me periodic Email Reminders with the link to this website