This page includes summaries, key points, and the full-text of newspaper and magazine articles and OP-ED pieces. The source and author's name(s), along with an internet link (unless behind a paywall), are provided for each item.
pdf
Trump to Break Ground on Arch Before Getting Approval
By Luke Broadwater and Emily Badger - Sep 3, 2026
NY Times
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access): https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/03/us/politics/trump-triumphal-arch-plans-approval.html
Summary
President Trump is proceeding with construction of a 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery, despite lacking final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Historic Preservation Act review. The arch, intended to celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence, has faced legal challenges, including a lawsuit from Vietnam War veterans, citing obstruction of views and lack of congressional approval. The administration’s actions suggest a disregard for legal processes and a potential power play ahead of the midterm elections.
Key Points
- Unilateral Execution and Timeline
- The Trump administration is initiating excavation for a 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery within two weeks, pushing ahead before receiving final, legally required approvals. The announcement, made by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on social media, bypassed a prior legal commitment to give a formal 14-day notice.
- Bypassed Reviews and Pending Approvals
- While the Commission of Fine Arts approved a revised design in May, the project lacks final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, which next meets on October 1, and has not finished its review under the National Historic Preservation Act. A National Park Service report acknowledged that the structure would disrupt sightlines and symbolism across numerous historic sites in Washington.
- Legal Challenges and Judicial Precedent
- A group of Vietnam War veterans has filed a lawsuit seeking to halt construction, citing a lack of congressional authorization and disruption to key sightlines. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling allowed construction on the White House ballroom to proceed on standing grounds, prompting the administration to file for the arch lawsuit's dismissal on identical legal arguments.
- Project Purpose and Scale
- Proposed to mark the 250th anniversary of American independence—though President Trump has also noted the structure is for himself—the arch is designed to stand taller than Paris's Arc de Triomphe. The Federal Aviation Administration recommended adding red blinking obstruction lights due to nearby flight paths, but the administration has not confirmed compliance.
- Political Backlash
- Congressional Democrats argue the project is an illegal exercise of vanity being rushed ahead of the midterm elections. Lawmakers have indicated that regaining a House majority could enable Congress to pursue legal action to block unauthorized presidential construction projects.
Article's Full Text:
President Trump is breaking ground on his 250-foot-tall triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, even before a federal review panel has approved the project.
Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, on Thursday announced plans for the excavation work.
“After a very long wait (over 125 years!), we are preparing to start, over the next two-week period, the excavation work necessary for the Great Triumphal Arch” he wrote in a social media post, adding: “This will be one of the Great Pieces of American Architecture, honoring the history and significance of Arlington Cemetery and befitting the most powerful Capital in the World.”
The rush to push ahead with work on the arch follows a familiar pattern for Mr. Trump, who has frequently embarked on large-scale changes to historic properties in Washington without approvals from Congress or anyone else. And it comes days after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the administration to continue building a ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing.
Preservation organizations trying to block the president’s other construction projects had feared that the ruling would embolden the president to disregard those other legal challenges, too.
In this case, Mr. Trump has proposed building a 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial that he has said must be taller than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. He has said the arch is meant to celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence, though he has also said that the arch is for himself.
The Commission of Fine Arts approved the design in May, even after the president rejected the panel’s suggestion to make the structure smaller by removing a towering, winged angel and two golden eagles. The administration has done preliminary testing of the site and has awarded $500,000 to an Oregon-based firm for an environmental assessment.
But Mr. Trump’s plans have not received final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, which has authority over building projects on federally owned land in Washington. Mr. Trump last month named Mark Paoletta, a lawyer in his administration and a close associate of Justice Clarence Thomas’s, to lead the planning commission reviewing the arch. The panel, which met on Thursday, is not scheduled to meet again until Oct. 1.
The arch has also not completed its review under the National Historic Preservation Act, another legal requirement.
Last week, the National Park Service published a final report acknowledging that the arch would disrupt the views and symbolism of dozens of other historically significant sites around the capital.
Mr. Burgum’s announcement suggests that the administration now feels empowered not just to disregard a lawsuit challenging the arch, but also legal requirements that it had previously committed to follow.
A group of Vietnam War veterans has sued to stop construction, citing the lack of congressional approval for the project and arguing that the arch would obstruct the view between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.
“This demonstrates that they’ve never really taken seriously what they’ve been saying to the court, which is ‘allow the process to work itself out,’” said Nicolas Sansone, a lawyer with Public Citizen Litigation Group leading a challenge to the arch, referring to Mr. Burgum’s post.
That process, he added, has not worked itself out. “And yet here they are announcing to the American people that they’re proceeding with construction,” he said.
The administration previously committed to provide 14 days’ notice in a legal filing that it intended to start construction. Instead, Mr. Sansone said, that notice arrived in a social media post.
Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr., a Virginia Democrat whose district includes the nearby Arlington National Cemetery, said in a statement on Thursday that “this project is not even close to being ready for prime time,” adding that the Trump administration had “not won the legal battle over the proposal, which is plainly illegal without congressional authorization.”
Mr. Beyer said Mr. Trump and Mr. Burgum were “disregarding the risks and rushing this towering monument to Trump’s vanity because they believe Republicans will get crushed in November.”
The recent Supreme Court ruling, which allowed construction of Mr. Trump’s planned ballroom to proceed, means that preservation groups could have a hard time achieving the legal standing to sue. Before Mr. Burgum’s announcement, the administration on Thursday filed a legal notice arguing that the arch suit should be dismissed for the same reasons the Supreme Court turned away the ballroom challenge. On Wednesday, it filed a similar notice in the lawsuit challenging the president’s plans to build a luxury golf course in East Potomac Park.
Democrats have suggested that if they retake the House after the midterm elections, they could sue to stop the president’s construction projects that have bypassed Congress.
The Federal Aviation Administration has also studied the arch project, to assess its impact on a busy flight path in and out of Washington. It recommended red, blinking obstruction lights similar to the ones atop the Washington Monument be added — a common measure for large structures near airports.
Mr. Trump has not said whether he would follow that safety recommendation.
Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, on Thursday announced plans for the excavation work.
“After a very long wait (over 125 years!), we are preparing to start, over the next two-week period, the excavation work necessary for the Great Triumphal Arch” he wrote in a social media post, adding: “This will be one of the Great Pieces of American Architecture, honoring the history and significance of Arlington Cemetery and befitting the most powerful Capital in the World.”
The rush to push ahead with work on the arch follows a familiar pattern for Mr. Trump, who has frequently embarked on large-scale changes to historic properties in Washington without approvals from Congress or anyone else. And it comes days after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the administration to continue building a ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing.
Preservation organizations trying to block the president’s other construction projects had feared that the ruling would embolden the president to disregard those other legal challenges, too.
In this case, Mr. Trump has proposed building a 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial that he has said must be taller than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. He has said the arch is meant to celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence, though he has also said that the arch is for himself.
The Commission of Fine Arts approved the design in May, even after the president rejected the panel’s suggestion to make the structure smaller by removing a towering, winged angel and two golden eagles. The administration has done preliminary testing of the site and has awarded $500,000 to an Oregon-based firm for an environmental assessment.
But Mr. Trump’s plans have not received final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, which has authority over building projects on federally owned land in Washington. Mr. Trump last month named Mark Paoletta, a lawyer in his administration and a close associate of Justice Clarence Thomas’s, to lead the planning commission reviewing the arch. The panel, which met on Thursday, is not scheduled to meet again until Oct. 1.
The arch has also not completed its review under the National Historic Preservation Act, another legal requirement.
Last week, the National Park Service published a final report acknowledging that the arch would disrupt the views and symbolism of dozens of other historically significant sites around the capital.
Mr. Burgum’s announcement suggests that the administration now feels empowered not just to disregard a lawsuit challenging the arch, but also legal requirements that it had previously committed to follow.
A group of Vietnam War veterans has sued to stop construction, citing the lack of congressional approval for the project and arguing that the arch would obstruct the view between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.
“This demonstrates that they’ve never really taken seriously what they’ve been saying to the court, which is ‘allow the process to work itself out,’” said Nicolas Sansone, a lawyer with Public Citizen Litigation Group leading a challenge to the arch, referring to Mr. Burgum’s post.
That process, he added, has not worked itself out. “And yet here they are announcing to the American people that they’re proceeding with construction,” he said.
The administration previously committed to provide 14 days’ notice in a legal filing that it intended to start construction. Instead, Mr. Sansone said, that notice arrived in a social media post.
Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr., a Virginia Democrat whose district includes the nearby Arlington National Cemetery, said in a statement on Thursday that “this project is not even close to being ready for prime time,” adding that the Trump administration had “not won the legal battle over the proposal, which is plainly illegal without congressional authorization.”
Mr. Beyer said Mr. Trump and Mr. Burgum were “disregarding the risks and rushing this towering monument to Trump’s vanity because they believe Republicans will get crushed in November.”
The recent Supreme Court ruling, which allowed construction of Mr. Trump’s planned ballroom to proceed, means that preservation groups could have a hard time achieving the legal standing to sue. Before Mr. Burgum’s announcement, the administration on Thursday filed a legal notice arguing that the arch suit should be dismissed for the same reasons the Supreme Court turned away the ballroom challenge. On Wednesday, it filed a similar notice in the lawsuit challenging the president’s plans to build a luxury golf course in East Potomac Park.
Democrats have suggested that if they retake the House after the midterm elections, they could sue to stop the president’s construction projects that have bypassed Congress.
The Federal Aviation Administration has also studied the arch project, to assess its impact on a busy flight path in and out of Washington. It recommended red, blinking obstruction lights similar to the ones atop the Washington Monument be added — a common measure for large structures near airports.
Mr. Trump has not said whether he would follow that safety recommendation.
The Rush-Job Presidency
By Janay Kingsberry - Sep 5, 2026
The Atlantic
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access):
Summary
Trump’s administration is pushing for accelerated construction of several projects in Washington, D.C., including a White House ballroom, a triumphal arch, and renovations to the Kennedy Center. While these projects are being pursued with urgency, the compressed schedules pose risks of shoddy work and potential legal challenges. The administration’s focus on speed over cost and adherence to regulations raises concerns about the long-term quality and sustainability of these projects.
Key Points
- The Trump administration is attempting to rapidly transform the Washington, D.C., landscape with several high-profile construction projects—including a White House ballroom, a triumphal arch, and major Kennedy Center renovations—all targeting a deadline before the next presidential inauguration on January 20, 2029.
- To bypass traditional federal delays, the administration is using aggressive tactics such as fast-tracking designs, bypassing standard procedural approvals, altering preservation rules, and running intensive 20-hour-a-day work schedules.
- Legal challenges have struggled to match this rapid pace, as demonstrated by a Supreme Court ruling allowing ballroom construction to continue; by moving faster than regulatory and legal reviews can unfold, the administration is effectively using speed as a strategy to establish facts on the ground before courts can intervene.
- This extreme speed carries severe economic and operational trade-offs, as industry research shows that heavy overtime, overmanning sites, and fast-tracking designs drastically reduce labor productivity, increase fatigue, and dramatically drive up taxpayer costs—with the ballroom's estimated price tag already tripling to $600 million.
- Rushing these complex builds risks high-profile physical failures, a pattern already visible in the administration's rushed repairs to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, where hurried work resulted in peeling sealant, severe algae blooms, and a completely drained, fenced-off site requiring costly redo efforts.
Article's Full Text:
Construction is notoriously slow-going work. But in Donald Trump’s Washington, cranes and bulldozers appear like DoorDash deliveries: fast, frictionless, and on demand.
To build the president’s White House ballroom, roughly 250 workers have been pouring concrete and installing steel framework, keeping the site humming for 20 hours a day, seven days a week. The National Park Service has proposed a similarly intensive schedule for Trump’s planned triumphal arch: Construction will begin, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced on Thursday, in the next two weeks. And officials are trying to shut down the Kennedy Center for two years to carry out renovations that consultants say will take twice as long if the building remains open during the work. These are very different and ambitious projects, but they share the same presumed deadline: January 20, 2029.
They also share a risk: The compressed schedules could lead to shoddy work that will require more repairs later.
Trump has less than three years to complete his transformation of Washington, D.C., before his projects fall into—and perhaps die in—the hands of a successor. “Nobody will do it once I’m gone. When I leave here, nobody will,” he told New York magazine. The next president, whomever they are, likely won’t share Trump’s enthusiasm for gold finishes and Italian marble. To get the work done, his administration has found ways to circumvent the procedural obstacles that tend to slow federal projects.
Construction—one of the world’s least productive industries—may present its own paradox. Research has shown that long hours, additional shifts, and overlapping work tasks can shorten a project’s timeline—but only to a point. In many cases, the effort to build faster can invite new delays, higher costs, and revisions. Trump’s botched repairs to the Reflecting Pool ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday celebrations, in July, offer a classic example of the problem.
The ballroom project, a hulking party venue that overshadows the White House’s main building and its modest neoclassical design, could be another. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 this week that its construction could continue, saying that the preservationists trying to halt the project did not have standing to sue. The three liberal dissenting justices—along with, notably, Chief Justice John G. Roberts—argued that the construction was “likely unlawful.” But government filings claim that it’s already 65 percent complete—even as project leaders have continually revised design plans. By the time a new lawsuit from a challenger with stronger standing advances through the courts, how far along will the ballroom be?
“We have hundreds of happy construction workers in D.C. busily doing their job building the finest Ballroom/Military complex anywhere in the World,” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week after the Supreme Court decision.
With his lawyers saying that the project will be “substantially” finished by November, the clock is ticking fast.
Trump’s building spree presents a tricky calculation: The returns he wants are about time rather than cost. But speed in construction can get expensive fast, especially for a project whose anticipated costs have been hard to nail down. When Trump announced the ballroom plans in July 2025, he put the price at roughly $200 million, to be paid for by private donors. By October, he’d knocked down the East Wing of the White House without seeking any approvals. As the work has started, stopped (because of the preservationists’ lawsuit), and started again, the original estimate has tripled to $600 million, and taxpayers are expected to cover half of that amount, according to internal documents from the ballroom’s general contractor, Clark Construction, that were obtained by The Washington Post.
Those projections could rise again. “Accelerated construction is always at a higher cost, no matter what you do,” Awad Hanna, the chair of the construction-engineering and -management program at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told me. There are essentially three ways to make construction move faster, according to Hanna: Workers can put in overtime, contractors can add second or third shifts, or the project can resort to overmanning—that is, adding an unusually large number of workers to a site. Each method may buy some time but sacrifices some productivity, Hanna said.
Researchers have documented that trade-off for decades. A 1997 study published by the American Society of Civil Engineers examined 121 weeks of labor-productivity data from four industrial projects and found efficiency losses of roughly 10 to 15 percent for 50-to-60-hour workweeks.
Hanna’s own research has found similar patterns. With overmanning, the problem is that there’s only so much room for specific tasks to be performed. As the site fills up with workers, they can find themselves competing for tools, materials, and information—or simply getting in one another’s way. Meanwhile, overtime can lead to fatigue for workers who are spending 10 to 12 hours on their feet, carrying heavy objects while also needing to remain diligent about their own safety.
There is another way to speed up construction without adding hours or workers: starting construction before a design is complete. The industry calls this fast-tracking. But a 2023 study found that construction professionals perceived the fast-track strategy as posing a different set of risks, including construction errors and productivity declines, when better productivity is supposed to be the whole point.
A certain amount of secrecy surrounds the White House worksite, in part because of a large military structure that is being built underground, beneath where the ballroom will stand. The methods to speed up the work are unclear, although the teams behind the project are reputable: Clark Construction is a seasoned federal contractor, and the architectural firm Shalom Baranes Associates repaired the Pentagon after 9/11. A White House spokesperson told me that the project is proceeding with the 20-hour schedule for now.
In April, Trump turned his focus to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, a century-old landmark that has long struggled with leaks and algae blooms. Trump first claimed that he could complete a repair project in a week for less than $2 million. “I have a guy who’s unbelievable at doing swimming pools,” he told reporters at the time. The costs climbed to more than $16 million, which included the installation of a waterproof liner tinted in a color that he called American-flag blue. But shortly after the pool reopened, in June, algae returned in force and the sealant peeled, leading crews to repeatedly drain and scrub the basin over the summer. Now it sits completely empty and fenced off. Trump accused vandals of damaging the pool, but his own U.S. attorney for D.C. refuted those claims, pointing to the contractor’s failures and the Interior Department providing “less than fulsome information at the outset of the case.” Federal officials recently hired a new contractor to deal with the algae.
Trump has already cleared one obstacle blocking the ballroom. But the legal case is not over. Following the emergency ruling, the government still has to formally ask the Supreme Court to hear its appeal. And the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the suit against Trump, can continue a fight in the lower courts.
For each of Trump’s Washington projects, officials have beefed up their justifications in one way or another in the face of legal challenges. In the administration’s view: The Kennedy Center may have to be “taken down” if its planned two-year shutdown for renovations is blocked. (Critics have pushed back on officials’ claims that the building’s conditions are existentially dire.) The Reflecting Pool’s needed repairs were urgent enough to exempt them from the typical competitive-bidding process. (The urgency was the July 4 celebrations.) And now? The White House ballroom is needed for security reasons, because it’s connected to a military bunker.
The administration has also pointed to the ballroom’s progress in arguing against an injunction, raising a larger question about whether speed itself has become a form of power in Trump’s building spree. If a president can build faster than Congress or regulators can review, legal constraints may matter less in practice—not because they have disappeared but because enforcing them comes too late. This week’s Supreme Court ruling has already prompted at least one federal judge to consider its implications for another Trump project. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols ordered lawyers representing the Interior Department to address how the Court’s ballroom decision affects its pending motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging work on the Reflecting Pool.
When asked about the start of excavations for the triumphal arch, the White House spokesperson said in an email, “Work will begin that does not require approval, but rather helps in the process. We will, of course, continue on our path of seeking final approval from all applicable entities.” The arch still needs final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, to which Trump has added loyalists. But the administration has also been working to water down historic-preservation rules governing federal projects just as the arch has become subject to that process. Meanwhile, the Kennedy Center—which Trump also controls—cannot start its renovation until a judge signs off on the latest plan. But this week, the center removed a prominent artwork near the Potomac River, a sign that top-down change has begun.
All three projects—the ballroom, the arch, and the Kennedy Center—may soon be moving forward simultaneously, red tape cleared (or ignored). But sped-up construction can impose its own obstacles. When unexpected delays crop up, even presidents have to wait.
To build the president’s White House ballroom, roughly 250 workers have been pouring concrete and installing steel framework, keeping the site humming for 20 hours a day, seven days a week. The National Park Service has proposed a similarly intensive schedule for Trump’s planned triumphal arch: Construction will begin, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced on Thursday, in the next two weeks. And officials are trying to shut down the Kennedy Center for two years to carry out renovations that consultants say will take twice as long if the building remains open during the work. These are very different and ambitious projects, but they share the same presumed deadline: January 20, 2029.
They also share a risk: The compressed schedules could lead to shoddy work that will require more repairs later.
Trump has less than three years to complete his transformation of Washington, D.C., before his projects fall into—and perhaps die in—the hands of a successor. “Nobody will do it once I’m gone. When I leave here, nobody will,” he told New York magazine. The next president, whomever they are, likely won’t share Trump’s enthusiasm for gold finishes and Italian marble. To get the work done, his administration has found ways to circumvent the procedural obstacles that tend to slow federal projects.
Construction—one of the world’s least productive industries—may present its own paradox. Research has shown that long hours, additional shifts, and overlapping work tasks can shorten a project’s timeline—but only to a point. In many cases, the effort to build faster can invite new delays, higher costs, and revisions. Trump’s botched repairs to the Reflecting Pool ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday celebrations, in July, offer a classic example of the problem.
The ballroom project, a hulking party venue that overshadows the White House’s main building and its modest neoclassical design, could be another. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 this week that its construction could continue, saying that the preservationists trying to halt the project did not have standing to sue. The three liberal dissenting justices—along with, notably, Chief Justice John G. Roberts—argued that the construction was “likely unlawful.” But government filings claim that it’s already 65 percent complete—even as project leaders have continually revised design plans. By the time a new lawsuit from a challenger with stronger standing advances through the courts, how far along will the ballroom be?
“We have hundreds of happy construction workers in D.C. busily doing their job building the finest Ballroom/Military complex anywhere in the World,” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week after the Supreme Court decision.
With his lawyers saying that the project will be “substantially” finished by November, the clock is ticking fast.
Trump’s building spree presents a tricky calculation: The returns he wants are about time rather than cost. But speed in construction can get expensive fast, especially for a project whose anticipated costs have been hard to nail down. When Trump announced the ballroom plans in July 2025, he put the price at roughly $200 million, to be paid for by private donors. By October, he’d knocked down the East Wing of the White House without seeking any approvals. As the work has started, stopped (because of the preservationists’ lawsuit), and started again, the original estimate has tripled to $600 million, and taxpayers are expected to cover half of that amount, according to internal documents from the ballroom’s general contractor, Clark Construction, that were obtained by The Washington Post.
Those projections could rise again. “Accelerated construction is always at a higher cost, no matter what you do,” Awad Hanna, the chair of the construction-engineering and -management program at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told me. There are essentially three ways to make construction move faster, according to Hanna: Workers can put in overtime, contractors can add second or third shifts, or the project can resort to overmanning—that is, adding an unusually large number of workers to a site. Each method may buy some time but sacrifices some productivity, Hanna said.
Researchers have documented that trade-off for decades. A 1997 study published by the American Society of Civil Engineers examined 121 weeks of labor-productivity data from four industrial projects and found efficiency losses of roughly 10 to 15 percent for 50-to-60-hour workweeks.
Hanna’s own research has found similar patterns. With overmanning, the problem is that there’s only so much room for specific tasks to be performed. As the site fills up with workers, they can find themselves competing for tools, materials, and information—or simply getting in one another’s way. Meanwhile, overtime can lead to fatigue for workers who are spending 10 to 12 hours on their feet, carrying heavy objects while also needing to remain diligent about their own safety.
There is another way to speed up construction without adding hours or workers: starting construction before a design is complete. The industry calls this fast-tracking. But a 2023 study found that construction professionals perceived the fast-track strategy as posing a different set of risks, including construction errors and productivity declines, when better productivity is supposed to be the whole point.
A certain amount of secrecy surrounds the White House worksite, in part because of a large military structure that is being built underground, beneath where the ballroom will stand. The methods to speed up the work are unclear, although the teams behind the project are reputable: Clark Construction is a seasoned federal contractor, and the architectural firm Shalom Baranes Associates repaired the Pentagon after 9/11. A White House spokesperson told me that the project is proceeding with the 20-hour schedule for now.
In April, Trump turned his focus to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, a century-old landmark that has long struggled with leaks and algae blooms. Trump first claimed that he could complete a repair project in a week for less than $2 million. “I have a guy who’s unbelievable at doing swimming pools,” he told reporters at the time. The costs climbed to more than $16 million, which included the installation of a waterproof liner tinted in a color that he called American-flag blue. But shortly after the pool reopened, in June, algae returned in force and the sealant peeled, leading crews to repeatedly drain and scrub the basin over the summer. Now it sits completely empty and fenced off. Trump accused vandals of damaging the pool, but his own U.S. attorney for D.C. refuted those claims, pointing to the contractor’s failures and the Interior Department providing “less than fulsome information at the outset of the case.” Federal officials recently hired a new contractor to deal with the algae.
Trump has already cleared one obstacle blocking the ballroom. But the legal case is not over. Following the emergency ruling, the government still has to formally ask the Supreme Court to hear its appeal. And the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the suit against Trump, can continue a fight in the lower courts.
For each of Trump’s Washington projects, officials have beefed up their justifications in one way or another in the face of legal challenges. In the administration’s view: The Kennedy Center may have to be “taken down” if its planned two-year shutdown for renovations is blocked. (Critics have pushed back on officials’ claims that the building’s conditions are existentially dire.) The Reflecting Pool’s needed repairs were urgent enough to exempt them from the typical competitive-bidding process. (The urgency was the July 4 celebrations.) And now? The White House ballroom is needed for security reasons, because it’s connected to a military bunker.
The administration has also pointed to the ballroom’s progress in arguing against an injunction, raising a larger question about whether speed itself has become a form of power in Trump’s building spree. If a president can build faster than Congress or regulators can review, legal constraints may matter less in practice—not because they have disappeared but because enforcing them comes too late. This week’s Supreme Court ruling has already prompted at least one federal judge to consider its implications for another Trump project. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols ordered lawyers representing the Interior Department to address how the Court’s ballroom decision affects its pending motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging work on the Reflecting Pool.
When asked about the start of excavations for the triumphal arch, the White House spokesperson said in an email, “Work will begin that does not require approval, but rather helps in the process. We will, of course, continue on our path of seeking final approval from all applicable entities.” The arch still needs final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, to which Trump has added loyalists. But the administration has also been working to water down historic-preservation rules governing federal projects just as the arch has become subject to that process. Meanwhile, the Kennedy Center—which Trump also controls—cannot start its renovation until a judge signs off on the latest plan. But this week, the center removed a prominent artwork near the Potomac River, a sign that top-down change has begun.
All three projects—the ballroom, the arch, and the Kennedy Center—may soon be moving forward simultaneously, red tape cleared (or ignored). But sped-up construction can impose its own obstacles. When unexpected delays crop up, even presidents have to wait.
Claims and Facts About Venezuela Oil Deal—It Won’t Save the SPR
By Scott Montgomery - Sep 4, 2026
Forbes
pdf
Link to Internet if no paywall or limited free access):
Summary
The U.S. deal with Venezuela for oil development in 17 fields with 65 billion barrels of proven reserves is significant but not a substitute for refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The deal, involving North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP) and the U.S. Department of War, aims to boost Venezuelan production, potentially reducing U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil. However, the deal won’t immediately lower gas prices or address the SPR’s aging infrastructure, which needs urgent attention to ensure its effectiveness in emergencies.
Key Points
- The U.S. deal for Venezuelan oil does not fix immediate domestic energy risks, as future production cannot replace a functional emergency reserve.
- Washington’s agreement grants long-term concessions for 17 heavy-oil fields, but turning these reserves into meaningful output requires massive infrastructure repairs and could take up to a decade.
- National security drives the initiative by attempting to displace Russian and Chinese influence in the region while reducing reliance on Middle Eastern and foreign imports.
- Claims surrounding the deal are largely overstated; it is neither the largest oil deal in history nor a quick fix for gas prices, especially given geopolitical friction in the Persian Gulf.
- Venezuela’s heavy crude will not double U.S. reserves, nor can it easily refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve due to severe chemical mismatches that require costly, complex dilution and refining before storage.
- The Strategic Petroleum Reserve sits at its lowest level in over four decades, severely depleted by major emergency drawdowns in 2022 and 2026.
- Years of deferred maintenance and deferred upgrades have left the reserve's physical infrastructure—such as pumps, pipes, and salt caverns—operating well below its original design capacity and in urgent need of repair.
Article's Full Text:
There is an irony at the heart of Washington’s new oil deal with Venezuela.
Just as the United States is positioning itself to gain influence over billions of barrels of future Venezuelan production, America’s own emergency stockpile has fallen to its lowest level in more than 45 years—when it was still being filled for the first time.
The Trump administration’s deal with Caracas may or may not prove to be an important piece of U.S. energy policy in the longer run. But it is definitely not a substitute for refilling and repairing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Oil that might be produced years from now in Venezuela cannot solve a supply crisis tomorrow if the American reserve is short of usable crude or lacks the infrastructure to move it.
The Promise of Venezuela – What Does this New Agreement Offer?
The White House deal covers 17 Venezuelan oil fields with roughly 65 billion barrels of proven reserves. North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), the firm chosen to develop this oil, has been offered a deal that might remind analysts of an earlier time in the history of the industry.
NABEP will receive 100-year concessions from the Venezuelan government, while the U.S. Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital takes a 35% stake in NABEP. The State Department, meanwhile, will have the right to buy 20% of current and future production at production cost, plus a right of first refusal on the rest.
NABEP says it will seek $100 billion to invest in repairing and upgrading the relevant infrastructure, much of which is in a degraded state. This will also have to include reconditioning a sizable number of existing wells and possibly drilling new ones as well.
This work will be more extensive, specialized, and expensive than most field upgrades because of the extra-heavy, flow-resistant nature of the oil itself. I offered some details about this in an earlier article, where I emphasized a minimum of 3-5 years would be needed to elevate production to a significant degree beyond the 1.2 million barrels/day Venezuela now produces.
Chevron, which has grown output from its concessions by 12% this year, plans to double this by the end of 2028 to about 420,000 bbls/d and then increase this to around 600,000 bbls/d by the early 2030s. These plans include $7 billion of investment in different areas than the mentioned 17 fields. Important as this is—Chevron being a company with deep pockets and superior expertise—it will be only part of what’s needed to boost Venezuela to the 3.4 million bbls/d it achieved in 1998. That could well require a decade or more.
Such appears a likely target in the minds of officials in both Washington and Caracas and sounds impressive as a projection. Yet, it depends on investment actually arriving, production progressively growing, oil prices happily cooperating, and the political framework surviving—in short, what happens above ground.
For Washington, there is a definite national security aspect. Many of the 17 fields were licensed to Chinese and Russian companies under Maduro. Meanwhile, even as the world’s largest hydrocarbon producer, the U.S. is the second-largest oil importer, after China. More oil from Venezuela could reduce dependence on the Persian Gulf, and perhaps—given current White House priorities—America’s biggest supplier, Canada, as well.
Facts to Consider in this “Biggest Oil Deal in World History”
Trump and officials have made a number of claims about what this deal represents that might benefit from some factual adjustment.
First, it is not the largest such deal in history. One example: in 1901, British financier William Knox D’Arcy obtained a 60-year concession from the Shah for the oil of Iran (est. proven reserves 209 billion bbls). Six years later, the deal shifted to the newly formed Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which later became BP (the deal did not long survive, however).
Second, the deal will not bring down oil (read: gasoline & diesel) prices anytime soon. If the president hoped his announcement would itself convince the market that more was on the way soon, it failed to do so. Such a possibility, moreover, was wholly offset by renewed hostilities between the U.S. and Iran in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.
Third, the 65 billion bbls would not “double U.S. reserves.” This is not how things work—the oil is still in Venezuela, no matter who develops it. Also, estimates for “proven” U.S. reserves vary from 46 to 69 billion bbls. As this might suggest, there’s no real consensus. The technological revolution, in which “fracking” is only a part, has enormously expanded the total likely endowment, which continues to be debated. In my own conversations with industry scientists, numbers as high as 100+ billion bbls are mentioned.
Fourth, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has said the deal “shifts the [center] of geopolitics of energy from the Middle East to the Western Hemisphere.” The key problem here is that energy geopolitics today has multiple centers—those for oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, solar, and wind. Europe, for example, depends on the U.S. for as much as 58% of its gas imports but 98% of its solar panels.
Finally, Trump has said that “One of the things I am going to do with the Venezuelan Oil is fill up the Strategic [Petroleum] Reserves.” This deserves a bit of discussion.
Could Venezuelan Oil Help Refill the SPR?
Trump’s promise is appropriate in one sense: the SPR needs help, and soon.
As of late August 2026, it held just under 290 million bbls, its lowest level since late 1982, about 40% of the official 714 million bbl capacity. This will drop to about 240 million (34%) if Trump gives the go-ahead for a final release agreed to with the International Energy Agency to help soften market effects of the Iran War.
In its total history, the SPR has seen a total of about 500 million bbls withdrawn, with more than two-thirds used to offset sudden high price events, one in 2022 (180 million bbls, related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine), the other in 2026 (172 million bbls). These drawdowns, coming so close to one another, demonstrated that the SPR could still perform under enormous pressure.
But it also highlighted an aging system greatly in need of repair. According to a recent, sobering General Accountability Office (GAO) report, triage fixes to SPR infrastructure had to be made during these recent releases due to years of inadequate maintenance. As the report states, the 2022 withdrawal “served as an unplanned stress test of the reserve’s operational capabilities” that showed it operated “well below what the SPR was designed to be capable of in terms of speed and scale.”
Pumps, pipes, electrical equipment, water systems, storage tanks, fire protection, commercial pipelines, and terminals all have to work. If one link fails, the barrels sitting underground may not be much use. There are also problems related to the wells used for injecting and withdrawing oil from the salt caverns where it’s stored, together with underlying brine (oil being less dense than water).
Congress has added to the wear and tear by directing sales of crude from the SPR for its own budgetary priorities.
The GAO’s assessment is that the reserve has continued to meet demanding releases, but its ability to do so is ever more at risk. For now, there appears to be no clear plan for how to address the full range of challenges to bring the reserve fully up to grade—even aside from the issue of refilling it.
Not a Good Match for What the SPR Needs
The idea of refilling the SPR with petroleum from Venezuela’s massive Orinoco Heavy Oil Belt isn’t likely to be realized any time soon, if ever. The reason isn’t political or economic but scientific.
Orinoco crude in its raw state is too dense and too rich in sulfur to be injected into the SPR. Such crude is highly viscous, resistant to flow, and corrosive. To be useful, it would require being diluted with a very light hydrocarbon liquid (Naptha or condensate) and subjected to sulfur removal. To get the original crude to an acceptable density level would require dilution to as much as 50%, with desulfurization normally performed in a catalytic chemical reaction at high temperatures and pressures. All of which adds significant cost.
There’s a maintenance issue here too. To respond to an emergency, the SPR was designed to withdraw oil rapidly--4.4 million bbls/d was the original maximum. In practice, releases have never come near this, with the recent, large-scale withdrawals kept to 1.0 – 1.4 million bbls/d over a period of 4-6 months. GAO suggests that this lower rate partly reflects a goal to reduce added wear on infrastructure and on the salt caverns themselves.
DOE should also document the lessons from the 2022 drawdown and the life-extension project, update technical standards that may no longer reflect current conditions, and give Congress a realistic estimate of what it costs to keep the reserve operational.
Energy security is more than a barrel count
Washington’s new Venezuela deal, if it survives, could reduce other imports and thus make America more energy secure as far as oil is concerned. Over the next decade, it could supply significant new production to Gulf Coast refineries configured to accept such crude.
But it won’t lower gas and diesel prices anytime soon, and it won’t do much for refilling the SPR, itself a confirmed element in U.S. energy security. The 2026 emergency release showed that the reserve can be indispensable in an emergency, preventing fuel prices from stratospheric heights and all the effects that would follow from this.
What the deal does do, however, is to help put the spotlight on this reserve and its needful condition. As things stand, the United States has been asking an aging infrastructural system to do more, even as it is kept in a condition of weakening capability.
Just as the United States is positioning itself to gain influence over billions of barrels of future Venezuelan production, America’s own emergency stockpile has fallen to its lowest level in more than 45 years—when it was still being filled for the first time.
The Trump administration’s deal with Caracas may or may not prove to be an important piece of U.S. energy policy in the longer run. But it is definitely not a substitute for refilling and repairing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Oil that might be produced years from now in Venezuela cannot solve a supply crisis tomorrow if the American reserve is short of usable crude or lacks the infrastructure to move it.
The Promise of Venezuela – What Does this New Agreement Offer?
The White House deal covers 17 Venezuelan oil fields with roughly 65 billion barrels of proven reserves. North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), the firm chosen to develop this oil, has been offered a deal that might remind analysts of an earlier time in the history of the industry.
NABEP will receive 100-year concessions from the Venezuelan government, while the U.S. Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital takes a 35% stake in NABEP. The State Department, meanwhile, will have the right to buy 20% of current and future production at production cost, plus a right of first refusal on the rest.
NABEP says it will seek $100 billion to invest in repairing and upgrading the relevant infrastructure, much of which is in a degraded state. This will also have to include reconditioning a sizable number of existing wells and possibly drilling new ones as well.
This work will be more extensive, specialized, and expensive than most field upgrades because of the extra-heavy, flow-resistant nature of the oil itself. I offered some details about this in an earlier article, where I emphasized a minimum of 3-5 years would be needed to elevate production to a significant degree beyond the 1.2 million barrels/day Venezuela now produces.
Chevron, which has grown output from its concessions by 12% this year, plans to double this by the end of 2028 to about 420,000 bbls/d and then increase this to around 600,000 bbls/d by the early 2030s. These plans include $7 billion of investment in different areas than the mentioned 17 fields. Important as this is—Chevron being a company with deep pockets and superior expertise—it will be only part of what’s needed to boost Venezuela to the 3.4 million bbls/d it achieved in 1998. That could well require a decade or more.
Such appears a likely target in the minds of officials in both Washington and Caracas and sounds impressive as a projection. Yet, it depends on investment actually arriving, production progressively growing, oil prices happily cooperating, and the political framework surviving—in short, what happens above ground.
For Washington, there is a definite national security aspect. Many of the 17 fields were licensed to Chinese and Russian companies under Maduro. Meanwhile, even as the world’s largest hydrocarbon producer, the U.S. is the second-largest oil importer, after China. More oil from Venezuela could reduce dependence on the Persian Gulf, and perhaps—given current White House priorities—America’s biggest supplier, Canada, as well.
Facts to Consider in this “Biggest Oil Deal in World History”
Trump and officials have made a number of claims about what this deal represents that might benefit from some factual adjustment.
First, it is not the largest such deal in history. One example: in 1901, British financier William Knox D’Arcy obtained a 60-year concession from the Shah for the oil of Iran (est. proven reserves 209 billion bbls). Six years later, the deal shifted to the newly formed Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which later became BP (the deal did not long survive, however).
Second, the deal will not bring down oil (read: gasoline & diesel) prices anytime soon. If the president hoped his announcement would itself convince the market that more was on the way soon, it failed to do so. Such a possibility, moreover, was wholly offset by renewed hostilities between the U.S. and Iran in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.
Third, the 65 billion bbls would not “double U.S. reserves.” This is not how things work—the oil is still in Venezuela, no matter who develops it. Also, estimates for “proven” U.S. reserves vary from 46 to 69 billion bbls. As this might suggest, there’s no real consensus. The technological revolution, in which “fracking” is only a part, has enormously expanded the total likely endowment, which continues to be debated. In my own conversations with industry scientists, numbers as high as 100+ billion bbls are mentioned.
Fourth, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has said the deal “shifts the [center] of geopolitics of energy from the Middle East to the Western Hemisphere.” The key problem here is that energy geopolitics today has multiple centers—those for oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, solar, and wind. Europe, for example, depends on the U.S. for as much as 58% of its gas imports but 98% of its solar panels.
Finally, Trump has said that “One of the things I am going to do with the Venezuelan Oil is fill up the Strategic [Petroleum] Reserves.” This deserves a bit of discussion.
Could Venezuelan Oil Help Refill the SPR?
Trump’s promise is appropriate in one sense: the SPR needs help, and soon.
As of late August 2026, it held just under 290 million bbls, its lowest level since late 1982, about 40% of the official 714 million bbl capacity. This will drop to about 240 million (34%) if Trump gives the go-ahead for a final release agreed to with the International Energy Agency to help soften market effects of the Iran War.
In its total history, the SPR has seen a total of about 500 million bbls withdrawn, with more than two-thirds used to offset sudden high price events, one in 2022 (180 million bbls, related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine), the other in 2026 (172 million bbls). These drawdowns, coming so close to one another, demonstrated that the SPR could still perform under enormous pressure.
But it also highlighted an aging system greatly in need of repair. According to a recent, sobering General Accountability Office (GAO) report, triage fixes to SPR infrastructure had to be made during these recent releases due to years of inadequate maintenance. As the report states, the 2022 withdrawal “served as an unplanned stress test of the reserve’s operational capabilities” that showed it operated “well below what the SPR was designed to be capable of in terms of speed and scale.”
Pumps, pipes, electrical equipment, water systems, storage tanks, fire protection, commercial pipelines, and terminals all have to work. If one link fails, the barrels sitting underground may not be much use. There are also problems related to the wells used for injecting and withdrawing oil from the salt caverns where it’s stored, together with underlying brine (oil being less dense than water).
Congress has added to the wear and tear by directing sales of crude from the SPR for its own budgetary priorities.
The GAO’s assessment is that the reserve has continued to meet demanding releases, but its ability to do so is ever more at risk. For now, there appears to be no clear plan for how to address the full range of challenges to bring the reserve fully up to grade—even aside from the issue of refilling it.
Not a Good Match for What the SPR Needs
The idea of refilling the SPR with petroleum from Venezuela’s massive Orinoco Heavy Oil Belt isn’t likely to be realized any time soon, if ever. The reason isn’t political or economic but scientific.
Orinoco crude in its raw state is too dense and too rich in sulfur to be injected into the SPR. Such crude is highly viscous, resistant to flow, and corrosive. To be useful, it would require being diluted with a very light hydrocarbon liquid (Naptha or condensate) and subjected to sulfur removal. To get the original crude to an acceptable density level would require dilution to as much as 50%, with desulfurization normally performed in a catalytic chemical reaction at high temperatures and pressures. All of which adds significant cost.
There’s a maintenance issue here too. To respond to an emergency, the SPR was designed to withdraw oil rapidly--4.4 million bbls/d was the original maximum. In practice, releases have never come near this, with the recent, large-scale withdrawals kept to 1.0 – 1.4 million bbls/d over a period of 4-6 months. GAO suggests that this lower rate partly reflects a goal to reduce added wear on infrastructure and on the salt caverns themselves.
DOE should also document the lessons from the 2022 drawdown and the life-extension project, update technical standards that may no longer reflect current conditions, and give Congress a realistic estimate of what it costs to keep the reserve operational.
Energy security is more than a barrel count
Washington’s new Venezuela deal, if it survives, could reduce other imports and thus make America more energy secure as far as oil is concerned. Over the next decade, it could supply significant new production to Gulf Coast refineries configured to accept such crude.
But it won’t lower gas and diesel prices anytime soon, and it won’t do much for refilling the SPR, itself a confirmed element in U.S. energy security. The 2026 emergency release showed that the reserve can be indispensable in an emergency, preventing fuel prices from stratospheric heights and all the effects that would follow from this.
What the deal does do, however, is to help put the spotlight on this reserve and its needful condition. As things stand, the United States has been asking an aging infrastructural system to do more, even as it is kept in a condition of weakening capability.
The Court’s Ballroom Decision Is A Sign Of Deeper Problems
By Leah Litman - Sep 2, 2026
The Atlantic
pdf
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access):
Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed President Trump to proceed with constructing a new ballroom at the White House, despite Congress not authorizing the project. The Court’s decision, based on the unitary-executive theory, expands executive power by allowing the president to use unauthorized taxpayer funds. This decision, along with others, undermines Congress’s power to make and enforce laws, threatening the separation of powers.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court misapplied the separation of powers by conflating the executive branch with the broader federal government, effectively enabling the president to spend unauthorized taxpayer funds to alter the White House despite Congress's constitutional authority over federal property and the purse.
- By applying a strict standard for legal standing, the Court rejected the historical and aesthetic injury claims of the historic preservation plaintiffs, creating a dangerous precedent where no party may have the legal standing required to enforce congressional statutes against executive overreach.
- This decision reinforces a broader trend under the unitary-executive theory, where the Court progressively restricts legislative authority while expanding executive power, effectively leaving statutory limits on the presidency unenforceable.
- The Court further flawed its reasoning by treating the judicial restraint of potentially illegal executive actions as an "irreparable harm" to the president, turning the separation of powers on its head to shield executive overreach from judicial review.
Article's Full Text:
In deciding to allow President Trump to proceed with constructing a new ballroom, which Congress has not authorized, at the White House, which Trump does not own, the U.S. Supreme Court invoked the separation of powers. But the Court got the constitutional problem precisely backwards: The separation-of-powers problem isn’t that courts are impermissibly blocking the president’s use of taxpayer funds to create a ballroom. It’s that the president is impermissibly using unauthorized taxpayer funds to create a ballroom.
The Court’s missteps were many, starting in the very first sentence of its opinion: “In October 2025, the federal government started a project to replace the East Wing of the White House.” (The opinion, decided via the Court’s shadow docket, was per curiam, meaning that it did not indicate an author, but because the four dissenters noted their names, we know the five justices in the majority were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.)
But the federal government didn’t begin replacing part of the White House. Only the president and the executive branch did. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president is not the be-all and end-all of the federal government. Far from it: The legislature, Congress, is the body that has the power to establish and regulate federal property (including the White House) and to authorize the spending of federal funds. Indeed, the plaintiff in the case—the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States—argued that the president was proceeding without congressional authorization and in violation of federal laws. The Supreme Court majority did not say otherwise, making no claim as to whether the ballroom-construction project was legal or whether the president had the authority to undertake it.
The Supreme Court’s conflation of the president with the federal government is the latest iteration in the Court’s steady embrace of the unitary-executive theory and the accompanying expansion of executive power. This theory maintains that all executive power resides in the president, and that Congress cannot limit the president’s exercise of that power. Yet these days, the president, occasionally with the Court’s blessing, is claiming to possess legislative powers too. That is the case when the president declines to spend funds that Congress has obligated or when the president decides to spend funds that Congress has not authorized. Under the Constitution, Congress, not the president, has the power of the purse. Nevertheless, the unitary-executive theory unites all government power in the president, paving the way for an executive unbound by law.
The Court’s errors continued as justices attempted to explain why the lower courts were wrong to block the president’s demolition of a portion of the White House. The Court relied on the doctrine of standing, which maintains that a plaintiff challenging the government’s actions must show that they have been injured by the actions they are contesting. In this case, one of the members of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, who lives in Washington, D.C., and about once a month visits the neighborhood where the White House is located, alleged that she had “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests” in what happened there.
Under the Court’s precedents, that injury should have sufficed. Indeed, in a prior opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court had said that desire to “observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes,” can constitute “a cognizable interest for the purpose of standing.” Crocodiles and all animals are great and important, to be sure. But so is the White House. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent, “The White House is not just any building.” It is “an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture.”
The doctrine of standing, the Court has said, is a vital component of the separation of powers, because it ensures that the judicial branch stays within its role rather than encroaching on the other branches, specifically the executive. But in this case, as in others, the Court has invoked the doctrine to support the flow of power in one direction only: limiting Congress’s authority while expanding the president’s. In the ballroom case, the Court said the National Trust member did not have standing to sue, and therefore the plaintiff (and the federal courts) could not enforce the federal statutes that the president was allegedly violating. Following the decision, it’s unclear who, if anyone, can sue to enforce the federal laws that the plaintiffs allege the president is violating with the ballroom-construction project.
That is the effect of many of the Court’s standing cases—to render congressional statutes unenforceable. In TransUnion v. Ramirez, the Court said that a group of plaintiffs who were incorrectly designated as suspected drug traffickers and terrorists in their credit reports could not sue to enforce Fair Credit Reporting Act provisions requiring consumer-reporting agencies to maintain accurate records. As a result of that decision, the FCRA provisions go largely unenforced. In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, the Court said that plaintiffs seeking to enforce the Endangered Species Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, among other laws, did not have standing, and thus could not enforce those laws either. Far from ensuring the separation of powers, the Court has used standing to undermine the principle: According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to make laws, but the Court’s standing decisions have freed the executive branch (and other entities) from having to comply with them.
The Court made its final error in its analysis of the relevant harms in the case. To obtain emergency relief on the shadow docket, the party seeking relief (here, the president, as he was appealing the lower court’s injunction) is supposed to show that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not act. The Court said the president is irreparably harmed because the lower court overstepped its powers, and undermined the separation of powers, by blocking the president’s actions. But if the president’s actions are illegal, it is more than a little odd to say that stopping them injures the president. That would essentially mean that at least some limits on the president’s power are unenforceable, because enforcing them would injure the president.
This is not the first decision to raise that harrowing implication. In a 2025 nationwide injunction case related to the birthright-citizenship executive order, the Court said the president was irreparably harmed because the lower courts had blocked an executive order—later determined to be unconstitutional—on a nationwide basis. Similarly, in the recent mail-in-ballot decision, the Court said the president was irreparably harmed because lower courts had blocked an executive order—one that is likely illegal—too soon, and before the plaintiffs experienced an injury.
It is fine and good to ensure that lower courts are acting within the bounds of their authority. But the separation of powers demands that the Supreme Court stop undermining Congress’s power to make meaningful laws by allowing the executive to violate them without consequence.
The Court’s missteps were many, starting in the very first sentence of its opinion: “In October 2025, the federal government started a project to replace the East Wing of the White House.” (The opinion, decided via the Court’s shadow docket, was per curiam, meaning that it did not indicate an author, but because the four dissenters noted their names, we know the five justices in the majority were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.)
But the federal government didn’t begin replacing part of the White House. Only the president and the executive branch did. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president is not the be-all and end-all of the federal government. Far from it: The legislature, Congress, is the body that has the power to establish and regulate federal property (including the White House) and to authorize the spending of federal funds. Indeed, the plaintiff in the case—the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States—argued that the president was proceeding without congressional authorization and in violation of federal laws. The Supreme Court majority did not say otherwise, making no claim as to whether the ballroom-construction project was legal or whether the president had the authority to undertake it.
The Supreme Court’s conflation of the president with the federal government is the latest iteration in the Court’s steady embrace of the unitary-executive theory and the accompanying expansion of executive power. This theory maintains that all executive power resides in the president, and that Congress cannot limit the president’s exercise of that power. Yet these days, the president, occasionally with the Court’s blessing, is claiming to possess legislative powers too. That is the case when the president declines to spend funds that Congress has obligated or when the president decides to spend funds that Congress has not authorized. Under the Constitution, Congress, not the president, has the power of the purse. Nevertheless, the unitary-executive theory unites all government power in the president, paving the way for an executive unbound by law.
The Court’s errors continued as justices attempted to explain why the lower courts were wrong to block the president’s demolition of a portion of the White House. The Court relied on the doctrine of standing, which maintains that a plaintiff challenging the government’s actions must show that they have been injured by the actions they are contesting. In this case, one of the members of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, who lives in Washington, D.C., and about once a month visits the neighborhood where the White House is located, alleged that she had “aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests” in what happened there.
Under the Court’s precedents, that injury should have sufficed. Indeed, in a prior opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court had said that desire to “observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes,” can constitute “a cognizable interest for the purpose of standing.” Crocodiles and all animals are great and important, to be sure. But so is the White House. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent, “The White House is not just any building.” It is “an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture.”
The doctrine of standing, the Court has said, is a vital component of the separation of powers, because it ensures that the judicial branch stays within its role rather than encroaching on the other branches, specifically the executive. But in this case, as in others, the Court has invoked the doctrine to support the flow of power in one direction only: limiting Congress’s authority while expanding the president’s. In the ballroom case, the Court said the National Trust member did not have standing to sue, and therefore the plaintiff (and the federal courts) could not enforce the federal statutes that the president was allegedly violating. Following the decision, it’s unclear who, if anyone, can sue to enforce the federal laws that the plaintiffs allege the president is violating with the ballroom-construction project.
That is the effect of many of the Court’s standing cases—to render congressional statutes unenforceable. In TransUnion v. Ramirez, the Court said that a group of plaintiffs who were incorrectly designated as suspected drug traffickers and terrorists in their credit reports could not sue to enforce Fair Credit Reporting Act provisions requiring consumer-reporting agencies to maintain accurate records. As a result of that decision, the FCRA provisions go largely unenforced. In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, the Court said that plaintiffs seeking to enforce the Endangered Species Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, among other laws, did not have standing, and thus could not enforce those laws either. Far from ensuring the separation of powers, the Court has used standing to undermine the principle: According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to make laws, but the Court’s standing decisions have freed the executive branch (and other entities) from having to comply with them.
The Court made its final error in its analysis of the relevant harms in the case. To obtain emergency relief on the shadow docket, the party seeking relief (here, the president, as he was appealing the lower court’s injunction) is supposed to show that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not act. The Court said the president is irreparably harmed because the lower court overstepped its powers, and undermined the separation of powers, by blocking the president’s actions. But if the president’s actions are illegal, it is more than a little odd to say that stopping them injures the president. That would essentially mean that at least some limits on the president’s power are unenforceable, because enforcing them would injure the president.
This is not the first decision to raise that harrowing implication. In a 2025 nationwide injunction case related to the birthright-citizenship executive order, the Court said the president was irreparably harmed because the lower courts had blocked an executive order—later determined to be unconstitutional—on a nationwide basis. Similarly, in the recent mail-in-ballot decision, the Court said the president was irreparably harmed because lower courts had blocked an executive order—one that is likely illegal—too soon, and before the plaintiffs experienced an injury.
It is fine and good to ensure that lower courts are acting within the bounds of their authority. But the separation of powers demands that the Supreme Court stop undermining Congress’s power to make meaningful laws by allowing the executive to violate them without consequence.
Trump’s latest threat — to stop trading with some countries unless there’s a rate cut — risks a shock to the U.S. economy.
By Victor Reklaitis - Sep 4, 2026
MarketWatch
pdf
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access):
Summary
President Trump threatened to stop trade with countries having a trade surplus with the U.S. if the Federal Reserve doesn’t lower interest rates. Economists criticized this threat, citing potential supply shocks and undermining the Fed’s independence. Despite Trump’s pressure, analysts believe the Fed will likely raise rates due to persistent inflation, with the decision depending on upcoming inflation reports.
Key Points
- President Trump threatened to halt trade with countries running a trade surplus with the U.S. unless the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, drawing sharp criticism from economists.
- Financial markets largely brushed off the threat as non-credible, showing no significant swings in stock prices, yields, or the dollar.
- Analysts note the pressure complicates matters for Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, making a rate hike slightly more likely due to persistent inflation, though upcoming inflation reports will dictate the final decision.
- Economic policy experts warned that carrying out a trade ban would trigger an immediate domestic supply shock and criticized Trump's ongoing attempts to undermine Federal Reserve independence.
- Some political advisors believe the rant will have no real impact on Fed policy, predicting Warsh will hold interest rates steady through the midterm elections rather than implement a hike or a cut.
Article's Full Text:
Economists and other analysts offered criticism Friday after President Donald Trump floated the idea of stopping trade with countries that have a trade surplus with the U.S. if the Federal Reserve doesn’t lower interest rates.
Trump’s threat came in a long social-media post as he reacted to a stronger-than-expected jobs report. “LOWER THE RATE OR I’LL STOP TRADING WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE A DEFICIT,” the president wrote.
“Asset markets essentially ignored the post — apparently viewing it as venting rather than a credible threat — with no visible impact on rate-hike probabilities, yields, stocks, or the dollar, in sharp contrast to the huge swings in market prices on trade and Fed threats in early 2025,” said an Evercore ISI team of analysts led by Krishna Guha.
Trump’s “renewed pressure on the Fed to cut does nonetheless complicate things even further” for Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh,” added the Evercore team, which is focused on economics and central banks. But it makes a rate hike “a bit more likely, not less likely,” and the decision on rates still will depend on upcoming inflation reports, they said in a note. The analysts put the chances for a hike at the Fed’s meeting in two weeks at under 50%, while betting markets recently were putting it just above 50%.
Trump has repeatedly called for lower interest rates during his second presidential term, but persistent inflation has made the Fed look more likely to raise rates in the months ahead, rather than cut them.
The president is making a number of “legal and economic mistakes” with his effort today to put pressure on the Fed’s rate-setting committee after the strong jobs report, said Henrietta Treyz, director of economic policy at advisory firm Veda Partners.
“Most egregious” is the pledge that “if interest rates aren’t lowered, he’ll impose a ban on foreign trade,” because that would “trigger an immediate supply shock” in the U.S., Treyz told MarketWatch in an email. Another mistake is Trump’s suggestion that he should be able to limit the Fed’s independence, she added.
Treyz also said it’s notable that Trump and his economic team apparently have “discussed the best way to coerce the Federal Reserve and determined that the Supreme Court had left him a loophole in its Feb. 20 ruling,” which nixed most of his tariffs at that time.
“The thought process around compelling the Fed to do Trump’s bidding has migrated from firing various board members (e.g., Jay Powell and Lisa Cook) to holding the U.S. supply chain hostage by banning imports from foreign nations,” she said.
In addition, Treyz said that unfortunately for Trump, she thinks Warsh is trying to distance himself from the president at this point. The biggest issue for Warsh is “whether he can assert his own independence and take back some of the sovereignty he’s lost since taking over as Fed chair and appearing accommodative to the president over the last few months,” she noted.
Trump’s post won’t have an effect on the Fed, according to Stephen Myrow, managing partner at Beacon Policy Advisors.
“It’s him lashing out,” Myrow told MarketWatch. However, Beacon’s overall view on the Fed is that Warsh will prevent a hike in interest rates before the midterm elections, keeping them at current levels.
“Politics is trumping data, and Warsh is talking tough because he wants the market to do his job for him in the meantime to buy him time,” Myrow said.
Justin Wolfers, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan, said Friday’s jobs report was encouraging, but Trump’s reaction to the release was discouraging.
“The U.S. got great jobs numbers this morning, and the president posted through it in such an absolutely bonkers way that I’m actually now more worried about our economic future,” Wolfers said in a social-media post.
Trump’s threat came in a long social-media post as he reacted to a stronger-than-expected jobs report. “LOWER THE RATE OR I’LL STOP TRADING WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE A DEFICIT,” the president wrote.
“Asset markets essentially ignored the post — apparently viewing it as venting rather than a credible threat — with no visible impact on rate-hike probabilities, yields, stocks, or the dollar, in sharp contrast to the huge swings in market prices on trade and Fed threats in early 2025,” said an Evercore ISI team of analysts led by Krishna Guha.
Trump’s “renewed pressure on the Fed to cut does nonetheless complicate things even further” for Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh,” added the Evercore team, which is focused on economics and central banks. But it makes a rate hike “a bit more likely, not less likely,” and the decision on rates still will depend on upcoming inflation reports, they said in a note. The analysts put the chances for a hike at the Fed’s meeting in two weeks at under 50%, while betting markets recently were putting it just above 50%.
Trump has repeatedly called for lower interest rates during his second presidential term, but persistent inflation has made the Fed look more likely to raise rates in the months ahead, rather than cut them.
The president is making a number of “legal and economic mistakes” with his effort today to put pressure on the Fed’s rate-setting committee after the strong jobs report, said Henrietta Treyz, director of economic policy at advisory firm Veda Partners.
“Most egregious” is the pledge that “if interest rates aren’t lowered, he’ll impose a ban on foreign trade,” because that would “trigger an immediate supply shock” in the U.S., Treyz told MarketWatch in an email. Another mistake is Trump’s suggestion that he should be able to limit the Fed’s independence, she added.
Treyz also said it’s notable that Trump and his economic team apparently have “discussed the best way to coerce the Federal Reserve and determined that the Supreme Court had left him a loophole in its Feb. 20 ruling,” which nixed most of his tariffs at that time.
“The thought process around compelling the Fed to do Trump’s bidding has migrated from firing various board members (e.g., Jay Powell and Lisa Cook) to holding the U.S. supply chain hostage by banning imports from foreign nations,” she said.
In addition, Treyz said that unfortunately for Trump, she thinks Warsh is trying to distance himself from the president at this point. The biggest issue for Warsh is “whether he can assert his own independence and take back some of the sovereignty he’s lost since taking over as Fed chair and appearing accommodative to the president over the last few months,” she noted.
Trump’s post won’t have an effect on the Fed, according to Stephen Myrow, managing partner at Beacon Policy Advisors.
“It’s him lashing out,” Myrow told MarketWatch. However, Beacon’s overall view on the Fed is that Warsh will prevent a hike in interest rates before the midterm elections, keeping them at current levels.
“Politics is trumping data, and Warsh is talking tough because he wants the market to do his job for him in the meantime to buy him time,” Myrow said.
Justin Wolfers, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan, said Friday’s jobs report was encouraging, but Trump’s reaction to the release was discouraging.
“The U.S. got great jobs numbers this morning, and the president posted through it in such an absolutely bonkers way that I’m actually now more worried about our economic future,” Wolfers said in a social-media post.
Not So Supreme, Mr. Roberts
By Maureen Dowd - Sep 5, 2026
NY Times
pdf
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access): https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/05/opinion/not-so-supreme-mr-roberts.html
Summary
The text criticizes Donald Trump’s disregard for legal and ethical boundaries, highlighting his exploitation of loopholes and his disregard for historical preservation. It argues that Trump’s actions, enabled by a complicit Supreme Court and Congress, are eroding democratic institutions and the integrity of the White House. The author contends that Trump’s focus on self-aggrandizement and personal gain is detrimental to the nation.
Key Points
- The provided text paints Donald Trump as a systemic outlaw who aggressively exploits legal, institutional, and constitutional loopholes for personal gain, relying on tactics inherited from his father rather than basic presidential norms. It argues that the American political system and the Constitution were designed around the assumption of baseline presidential decency, leaving institutions vulnerable to someone willing to constantly test their limits.
- A central focus is the Supreme Court's complicity, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative majority, whose rulings—including granting broad executive immunity—dismantled necessary legal guardrails. Roberts's recent dissents regarding unchecked White House construction projects are framed as a futile, belated objection to a runaway executive power he helped create. Ultimately, the piece depicts Trump as a self-absorbed figure abusing public heritage, separation of powers, and international policy for personal vanity and self-aggrandizement.
Article's Full Text:
It’s crazy to think about Donald Trump outrunning anything.
But in legal terms, the president is an Olympic-class sprinter. He breaks the law so fast that the law is left in his orange dust.
Trump is an outlaw. And our system was not built for an outlaw in the Oval.
He zeros in on loopholes in the law and the system that are based on trust and the assumption that our leaders — and their families — will be not be voracious scam artists.
“The Constitution was built on this idea that the president would have enough decency and morality that they just wouldn’t run around exploiting the gaps,” said the Trump biographer Tim O’Brien. “And for Trump, it’s like red meat. This idea that Trump’s mentor was Roy Cohn was profoundly wrong. Donald Trump’s mentor was Fred from day one. His father showed him how to exploit the government system, the legal system and business. His whole worldview is built around the idea that you exploit systems for personal gain, and there’s nothing wrong with doing that because the world’s populated by sharks and you just have to be the biggest shark.”
After running a court that has been complicit in Trump’s defiling our institutions and razing our hallowed spaces, Chief Justice John Roberts seems belatedly alarmed.
“That construction is likely unlawful,” Roberts wrote in his dissent on Monday from his fellow Republican justices’ ruling that the president’s ballroom behemoth — with taxpayers on the hook for over $300 million — can slouch toward completion. Noting that the president was “likely” infringing on Congress, Roberts added, “Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers.”
The White House is the People’s House. Chief executives are transient tenants. Its “stately simplicity,” President Teddy Roosevelt once said, “is an expression of the character of the period in which it was built, and is in accord with the purposes it was designed to serve.” Safeguarding it, he said, gave us continuity with our past.
Roberts used that quote in his dissent, as well as a line from Winston Churchill: “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.”
Trump was a builder, but he is such an egotist he can only view buildings — and reflecting pools — as reflections of himself. When he built Trump Tower, he tore down the Art Deco friezes on Bonwit Teller despite promising them to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Just so, he bulldozed the East Wing and tore up both of Jackie Kennedy’s gardens before Congress or historic preservationists had a chance to weigh in.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calls this a “catch me if you can” approach.
The Supreme Court protects the outlandish outlaw by palavering about whether the architectural historian who brought the case has “standing” to do so. Yet shouldn’t any American have standing to challenge Trump’s desecrations? Trump ludicrously blasted the preservationists fighting to stop the ballroom as “TREASONISTS.”
As he casually divides and undermines America, he obsesses on using Krazy Glue to affix gold crap to the walls of the Oval Office or plotting to plant 47 maple trees in Lafayette Park to honor himself. He got us into a war he has no clue how to get out of, yet spends his time mulling redecorating projects, gold gewgaws, his new helipad and his replacement of the asphalt driveway at the White House with granite.
There are so many pathetic scenes of the Supreme Court and Republicans in Congress caving in to Trump — on his war in Iran that he calls “small potatoes” and that JD Vance risibly claims is not a war; on his attempts to disenfranchise voters; on trying to hijack the Postal Service to obstruct those voting by mail; on plotting to sell of a chunk of Yosemite to a private developer; on allowing the killing of endangered wolves and the secret slaughter of wild horses; on trying to slap his name back on the Kennedy Center; on his petty, vindictive renaming of Lake Ontario as “Lake America,” in the midst of the U.S.-Canadian trade war, even though it’s not even named for the Canadian province.
Now Trump is breaking ground for his solipsistic, Napoleonic Triumphal Arch — never mind that it lacks federal approval and that the gold angel on top might endanger planes flying in and out of Reagan National Airport.
O’Brien thinks the most tragic thing is that the Supreme Court now has a conservative majority that believes in the unitary executive and is getting roadblocks out of the way to give the president more latitude, at the very moment we get a Caligula who desperately needs roadblocks. Roberts issued the ruling in 2024 giving Trump near-total criminal immunity, and that makes him complicit in Trump’s egregious behavior.
Roberts gave Trump the runway, and now he’s objecting. But it’s too late.
“And that’s the lesson of everybody who doesn’t understand who Donald Trump is,” O’Brien said. “He’s simply there to pick your pocket.”
But in legal terms, the president is an Olympic-class sprinter. He breaks the law so fast that the law is left in his orange dust.
Trump is an outlaw. And our system was not built for an outlaw in the Oval.
He zeros in on loopholes in the law and the system that are based on trust and the assumption that our leaders — and their families — will be not be voracious scam artists.
“The Constitution was built on this idea that the president would have enough decency and morality that they just wouldn’t run around exploiting the gaps,” said the Trump biographer Tim O’Brien. “And for Trump, it’s like red meat. This idea that Trump’s mentor was Roy Cohn was profoundly wrong. Donald Trump’s mentor was Fred from day one. His father showed him how to exploit the government system, the legal system and business. His whole worldview is built around the idea that you exploit systems for personal gain, and there’s nothing wrong with doing that because the world’s populated by sharks and you just have to be the biggest shark.”
After running a court that has been complicit in Trump’s defiling our institutions and razing our hallowed spaces, Chief Justice John Roberts seems belatedly alarmed.
“That construction is likely unlawful,” Roberts wrote in his dissent on Monday from his fellow Republican justices’ ruling that the president’s ballroom behemoth — with taxpayers on the hook for over $300 million — can slouch toward completion. Noting that the president was “likely” infringing on Congress, Roberts added, “Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers.”
The White House is the People’s House. Chief executives are transient tenants. Its “stately simplicity,” President Teddy Roosevelt once said, “is an expression of the character of the period in which it was built, and is in accord with the purposes it was designed to serve.” Safeguarding it, he said, gave us continuity with our past.
Roberts used that quote in his dissent, as well as a line from Winston Churchill: “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.”
Trump was a builder, but he is such an egotist he can only view buildings — and reflecting pools — as reflections of himself. When he built Trump Tower, he tore down the Art Deco friezes on Bonwit Teller despite promising them to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Just so, he bulldozed the East Wing and tore up both of Jackie Kennedy’s gardens before Congress or historic preservationists had a chance to weigh in.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calls this a “catch me if you can” approach.
The Supreme Court protects the outlandish outlaw by palavering about whether the architectural historian who brought the case has “standing” to do so. Yet shouldn’t any American have standing to challenge Trump’s desecrations? Trump ludicrously blasted the preservationists fighting to stop the ballroom as “TREASONISTS.”
As he casually divides and undermines America, he obsesses on using Krazy Glue to affix gold crap to the walls of the Oval Office or plotting to plant 47 maple trees in Lafayette Park to honor himself. He got us into a war he has no clue how to get out of, yet spends his time mulling redecorating projects, gold gewgaws, his new helipad and his replacement of the asphalt driveway at the White House with granite.
There are so many pathetic scenes of the Supreme Court and Republicans in Congress caving in to Trump — on his war in Iran that he calls “small potatoes” and that JD Vance risibly claims is not a war; on his attempts to disenfranchise voters; on trying to hijack the Postal Service to obstruct those voting by mail; on plotting to sell of a chunk of Yosemite to a private developer; on allowing the killing of endangered wolves and the secret slaughter of wild horses; on trying to slap his name back on the Kennedy Center; on his petty, vindictive renaming of Lake Ontario as “Lake America,” in the midst of the U.S.-Canadian trade war, even though it’s not even named for the Canadian province.
Now Trump is breaking ground for his solipsistic, Napoleonic Triumphal Arch — never mind that it lacks federal approval and that the gold angel on top might endanger planes flying in and out of Reagan National Airport.
O’Brien thinks the most tragic thing is that the Supreme Court now has a conservative majority that believes in the unitary executive and is getting roadblocks out of the way to give the president more latitude, at the very moment we get a Caligula who desperately needs roadblocks. Roberts issued the ruling in 2024 giving Trump near-total criminal immunity, and that makes him complicit in Trump’s egregious behavior.
Roberts gave Trump the runway, and now he’s objecting. But it’s too late.
“And that’s the lesson of everybody who doesn’t understand who Donald Trump is,” O’Brien said. “He’s simply there to pick your pocket.”
The Risk of Russian Sabotage in Europe: A Fight That Spirals Out of Control
By Michael Schwirtz and Adam Goldman - Sep 4, 2026
NY Times
pdf
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access): https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/04/world/europe/russia-europe-nato-sabotage.html
Summary
Russia’s failed drone attack on a German airport is part of a pattern of escalating sabotage against European targets, including plots to place incendiary devices on planes and blow up railroad tracks. These attacks, which have increased in frequency and intensity, are believed to be driven by Putin’s frustration with the war in Ukraine and his desire to bring the conflict to the West. While NATO has struggled to respond to these attacks, experts warn that a successful attack could trigger a crisis for the alliance.
Key Points
- Severe Escalation of Sabotage
- Russia has intensified a dangerous campaign of state-backed hybrid warfare across Europe, including a failed drone strike on a German airport targeting a Ukrainian cargo plane, arson, and plots against defense infrastructure.
- Strategic Motivations
- Driven by battlefield frustration and heavy losses in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin aims to bring the war directly to the West, which he views as an active adversary providing the weapons and intelligence sustaining Ukrainian defense.
- NATO's Structural Dilemma
- While intended to deter traditional military invasions, NATO struggles to counter these gray-zone tactics; experts warn that an inevitable mass-casualty event could accidentally trigger a broader, direct military confrontation.
- Western Response and Internal Friction
- European nations are considering covert retaliatory measures and stronger intelligence authority, but efforts to maintain a unified deterrent are hindered by varying political stances among allies, particularly within the U.S. administration.
Article's Full Text:
Russia’s failed drone attack on a German airport was part of a dangerous pattern of escalation that, experts and officials said, risks sparking an open confrontation with NATO — whether the Kremlin wants it or not.
German officials declared this week that the Russian state was behind the attack, in which one explosive drone hit a parked Ukrainian cargo plane and another appeared to collide with a plane taking off. Both drones failed to detonate. If successful, the attack could have killed or maimed people and led to unpredictable consequences, officials said.
It was the most dramatic in a spate of such attacks that includes plots to place incendiary devices aboard DHL cargo planes, blow up railroad tracks in Poland, and burn down warehouses and shopping centers all over Europe.
Such attacks began occurring shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, part of an effort by President Vladimir V. Putin to bring the war to the West. But they have recently increased in frequency and intensity, Western security officials said. The attacks, along with recent reports citing Western intelligence services suggesting Russia could be planning some kind of military incursion or provocation along NATO’s eastern flank, have frazzled Europe and left officials there casting about for solutions.
“Europeans are faced with the hard truth that this is the new normal,” Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Union’s executive arm, said on Wednesday. “We have to step up, and that means being ready to respond to Russia’s recklessness better and faster.”
The uptick in attacks appears to be driven in part by Mr. Putin’s frustration with the situation on the battlefield, experts said. Progress is slow and casualties are enormous, while Russia’s economy has been strained by a Ukrainian campaign of long-range strikes against e-commerce warehouses, oil refineries and military logistics hubs. In Mr. Putin’s mind, Russia is not just at war with Ukraine, experts said. It is also battling what he calls the “collective West” that he blames for providing the weapons, intelligence and technologies that have kept the Ukrainians in the fight.
Mr. Putin has always denied Russia’s involvement in European sabotage and suggested that the German authorities had planted evidence of Russia’s involvement in the Leipzig attack. But he referred to the West this week as “the sharks of imperialism” and suggested Russia’s enemies would get what they deserved.
“If anyone tries to drag us down the food chain and gobble us up, devour us, they might get a punch in the teeth,” Mr. Putin said at a news conference. “And Russia is ready to do this, despite the rapidly growing appetites and teeth of these sharks.”
The German authorities also opened investigations into possible sabotage attacks on a defense contractor in Munich and two electrical substations; a fire erupted at a drone factory in Poland that officials said was most likely caused by sabotage; and Denmark’s intelligence service said Russia was recruiting Danes to attack defense firms.
That was only this week.
“Russia is both planning and carrying out acts of sabotage against defense companies and the defense industry in Europe,” the Danish intelligence service, PET, said in a statement. “Russian intelligence services are actively preparing acts of sabotage directed at the defense industry in Denmark.”
No one has been killed or seriously injured in the attacks, but any bloodshed would present a profound crisis for NATO, which was created to deter and fight a land invasion and lacks the tools to respond to a slowly escalating conflict. Already it has struggled with how to adequately respond to Russia’s aggression.
“Russia has gotten pretty lucky,” said Julianne Smith, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO during the Biden administration. “At some point, it is going to go off the rails and somebody is going to get hurt and it’s going to present a different dilemma for the alliance.”
In response to the attack in Leipzig, Germany announced the closure of a diplomatic mission and additional travel restrictions on Russians, among other measures. Publicly accusing Russia in connection with such activities is rare, in part because it can be hard to draw a direct line between the perpetrators and the Russian state.
Alexander Dobrindt, Germany’s interior minister, said Tuesday that investigators had proof that agents who controlled the drones were working “on behalf of Russian state entities.”
Confronting such attacks has proved difficult in particular for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which was conceived as a deterrent to invasion by the Soviet Union. So far, Russia’s actions have fallen short of that.
There is a question of how far Mr. Putin will go, particularly whether he will try to directly test Article 5, NATO’s central tenet. It states that an attack on one alliance member is an attack against all.
Few Western intelligence officials consider an imminent attack on a NATO member probable, certainly not one involving Russian ground forces, which are bogged down in Ukraine. But in the face of Western involvement in Ukraine, Mr. Putin may feel he has no choice but to bring the fight to Europe in some limited way, experts said.
“I don’t think they want a third world war, but they have to demonstrate to everyone that it is not the time to mess with them,” said Piotr Krawczyk, the former director of Poland’s foreign intelligence service.
There is little that NATO’s member countries can overtly do to punish Russia for the sabotage attacks, beyond imposing sanctions and expelling diplomats.
But a number of covert responses are open to Western countries, including increasing intelligence support to Ukraine, conducting cyberattacks and undermining Russian interests in other parts of the world. In August, the German government passed draft legislation to authorize its intelligence services to carry out active measures like sabotage and cyberattacks. If approved by the parliament, the agencies would gain that power for the first time in Germany’s postwar history.
The secret nature of such responses makes it difficult to assess their effectiveness, though Russia’s increase in attacks is a sign that the West’s efforts are falling short.
“Because they have not been adequately deterred and Moscow has not paid a price, Putin is interpreting that as a signal to keep going,” said Ms. Smith, the former ambassador.
Another challenge for NATO is keeping its 32 member countries aligned. After Germany’s announcement this week, a chorus of allies voiced support and solidarity, including the American ambassador to NATO, Matthew G. Whitaker. Notably, though, his statement did not mention Russia by name. By contrast, a statement by Prime Minister Andy Burnham of Britain named Russia three times.
The omission was an example of the failure by the Trump administration to hold the Kremlin accountable. Since taking office last year, Mr. Trump has occasionally dangled the possibility of imposing costs on Mr. Putin’s transgressions, but he has rarely followed through.
Last week at NATO headquarters, Elbridge Colby, a senior Pentagon official, also omitted any mention of Russia while pushing European countries to take the lead in supporting Ukraine, part of an effort to reduce U.S. military presence on the continent. And on Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent blamed Ukraine for high energy prices dragging down the global economy, citing its attacks on Russia’s oil industry. He did not mention that Russia started the war and has relentlessly targeted Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.
It is the threat of a united response, Western officials believe, that keeps the Kremlin in check. And it is that unity that Mr. Putin seems to be testing with each new attack.
For now, Western officials insist that NATO retains its deterrent effect, though the ambivalence of the Trump administration has created uncertainty about whether it will continue to.
“Our assessment is that Vladimir Putin currently understands both what Article 5 means and what its actual consequences would be,” Kaupo Rosin, the head of Estonia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, said in an interview this week with a local news outlet.
“Our main concern, however, is the future,” he said. “We have to ensure that six months, one year, or five years from now, Russia still has the same understanding that NATO deterrence works.”
German officials declared this week that the Russian state was behind the attack, in which one explosive drone hit a parked Ukrainian cargo plane and another appeared to collide with a plane taking off. Both drones failed to detonate. If successful, the attack could have killed or maimed people and led to unpredictable consequences, officials said.
It was the most dramatic in a spate of such attacks that includes plots to place incendiary devices aboard DHL cargo planes, blow up railroad tracks in Poland, and burn down warehouses and shopping centers all over Europe.
Such attacks began occurring shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, part of an effort by President Vladimir V. Putin to bring the war to the West. But they have recently increased in frequency and intensity, Western security officials said. The attacks, along with recent reports citing Western intelligence services suggesting Russia could be planning some kind of military incursion or provocation along NATO’s eastern flank, have frazzled Europe and left officials there casting about for solutions.
“Europeans are faced with the hard truth that this is the new normal,” Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Union’s executive arm, said on Wednesday. “We have to step up, and that means being ready to respond to Russia’s recklessness better and faster.”
The uptick in attacks appears to be driven in part by Mr. Putin’s frustration with the situation on the battlefield, experts said. Progress is slow and casualties are enormous, while Russia’s economy has been strained by a Ukrainian campaign of long-range strikes against e-commerce warehouses, oil refineries and military logistics hubs. In Mr. Putin’s mind, Russia is not just at war with Ukraine, experts said. It is also battling what he calls the “collective West” that he blames for providing the weapons, intelligence and technologies that have kept the Ukrainians in the fight.
Mr. Putin has always denied Russia’s involvement in European sabotage and suggested that the German authorities had planted evidence of Russia’s involvement in the Leipzig attack. But he referred to the West this week as “the sharks of imperialism” and suggested Russia’s enemies would get what they deserved.
“If anyone tries to drag us down the food chain and gobble us up, devour us, they might get a punch in the teeth,” Mr. Putin said at a news conference. “And Russia is ready to do this, despite the rapidly growing appetites and teeth of these sharks.”
The German authorities also opened investigations into possible sabotage attacks on a defense contractor in Munich and two electrical substations; a fire erupted at a drone factory in Poland that officials said was most likely caused by sabotage; and Denmark’s intelligence service said Russia was recruiting Danes to attack defense firms.
That was only this week.
“Russia is both planning and carrying out acts of sabotage against defense companies and the defense industry in Europe,” the Danish intelligence service, PET, said in a statement. “Russian intelligence services are actively preparing acts of sabotage directed at the defense industry in Denmark.”
No one has been killed or seriously injured in the attacks, but any bloodshed would present a profound crisis for NATO, which was created to deter and fight a land invasion and lacks the tools to respond to a slowly escalating conflict. Already it has struggled with how to adequately respond to Russia’s aggression.
“Russia has gotten pretty lucky,” said Julianne Smith, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO during the Biden administration. “At some point, it is going to go off the rails and somebody is going to get hurt and it’s going to present a different dilemma for the alliance.”
In response to the attack in Leipzig, Germany announced the closure of a diplomatic mission and additional travel restrictions on Russians, among other measures. Publicly accusing Russia in connection with such activities is rare, in part because it can be hard to draw a direct line between the perpetrators and the Russian state.
Alexander Dobrindt, Germany’s interior minister, said Tuesday that investigators had proof that agents who controlled the drones were working “on behalf of Russian state entities.”
Confronting such attacks has proved difficult in particular for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which was conceived as a deterrent to invasion by the Soviet Union. So far, Russia’s actions have fallen short of that.
There is a question of how far Mr. Putin will go, particularly whether he will try to directly test Article 5, NATO’s central tenet. It states that an attack on one alliance member is an attack against all.
Few Western intelligence officials consider an imminent attack on a NATO member probable, certainly not one involving Russian ground forces, which are bogged down in Ukraine. But in the face of Western involvement in Ukraine, Mr. Putin may feel he has no choice but to bring the fight to Europe in some limited way, experts said.
“I don’t think they want a third world war, but they have to demonstrate to everyone that it is not the time to mess with them,” said Piotr Krawczyk, the former director of Poland’s foreign intelligence service.
There is little that NATO’s member countries can overtly do to punish Russia for the sabotage attacks, beyond imposing sanctions and expelling diplomats.
But a number of covert responses are open to Western countries, including increasing intelligence support to Ukraine, conducting cyberattacks and undermining Russian interests in other parts of the world. In August, the German government passed draft legislation to authorize its intelligence services to carry out active measures like sabotage and cyberattacks. If approved by the parliament, the agencies would gain that power for the first time in Germany’s postwar history.
The secret nature of such responses makes it difficult to assess their effectiveness, though Russia’s increase in attacks is a sign that the West’s efforts are falling short.
“Because they have not been adequately deterred and Moscow has not paid a price, Putin is interpreting that as a signal to keep going,” said Ms. Smith, the former ambassador.
Another challenge for NATO is keeping its 32 member countries aligned. After Germany’s announcement this week, a chorus of allies voiced support and solidarity, including the American ambassador to NATO, Matthew G. Whitaker. Notably, though, his statement did not mention Russia by name. By contrast, a statement by Prime Minister Andy Burnham of Britain named Russia three times.
The omission was an example of the failure by the Trump administration to hold the Kremlin accountable. Since taking office last year, Mr. Trump has occasionally dangled the possibility of imposing costs on Mr. Putin’s transgressions, but he has rarely followed through.
Last week at NATO headquarters, Elbridge Colby, a senior Pentagon official, also omitted any mention of Russia while pushing European countries to take the lead in supporting Ukraine, part of an effort to reduce U.S. military presence on the continent. And on Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent blamed Ukraine for high energy prices dragging down the global economy, citing its attacks on Russia’s oil industry. He did not mention that Russia started the war and has relentlessly targeted Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.
It is the threat of a united response, Western officials believe, that keeps the Kremlin in check. And it is that unity that Mr. Putin seems to be testing with each new attack.
For now, Western officials insist that NATO retains its deterrent effect, though the ambivalence of the Trump administration has created uncertainty about whether it will continue to.
“Our assessment is that Vladimir Putin currently understands both what Article 5 means and what its actual consequences would be,” Kaupo Rosin, the head of Estonia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, said in an interview this week with a local news outlet.
“Our main concern, however, is the future,” he said. “We have to ensure that six months, one year, or five years from now, Russia still has the same understanding that NATO deterrence works.”
US immigration judges told to slash time given to people awaiting visas or green cards before being deported
By Alexandra Villarreal - Sep 4, 2026
The Guardian
pdf
Link to Internet (if no paywall or limited free access): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/04/immigration-judges-limit-time-deportations?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1
Summary
Immigration judges in the US are being instructed to deny continuances, limiting the time immigrants have to find legal representation or await visa approvals. This policy, presented in a training session led by Judge Keith Hunsucker, aims to expedite case processing and reduce the backlog of 3.2 million pending cases. However, critics argue this approach harms immigrants with legitimate cases, particularly those seeking asylum or legal protections like the special immigrant juvenile classification.
Key Points
- Department of Justice Directive Restrictions
- The Department of Justice, through mandatory Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) training led by Board of Immigration Appeals Judge Keith Hunsucker, instructed U.S. immigration judges to strictly limit continuances. The policy pushes for faster adjudications to address a national backlog of roughly 3.2 million cases, framing long delays as avoidable inefficiencies or bad-faith stall tactics.
- Impact on Vulnerable Immigrants
- The restrictions explicitly target immigrants awaiting green cards or visas, including abused or abandoned youth eligible for Special Immigrant Juvenile status and survivors of violent crimes applying for U visas. Denying continuances forces abrupt deportation rulings, effectively cutting off these individuals from legal protections and pending document approvals held up by separate agency backlogs.
- Compressed Timelines for Legal Representation
- Under this strict interpretation of guidance, judges are discouraged from granting more than 10 days for immigrants to secure an attorney. The training warns defense attorneys against taking on more cases than they can handle, threatening referrals for professional sanctions, even as unrepresented immigrants face significantly higher rates of deportation.
Article's Full Text:
Immigration judges across the United States have been instructed to deny some of the most vulnerable people appearing in court the time needed for their visas or green cards to arrive – putting them at imminent risk of being thrown out of the country as the Trump administration continues to intensify its mass deportation campaign, the Guardian has learned.
Among the immigrants affected are abused and abandoned children and survivors of violent crime, according to the US government’s own training materials, which were shared exclusively with the Guardian.
Judges also appeared to be discouraged, under a hardline interpretation of existing policy guidance and laws, from giving people more than 10 days to find an attorney before proceeding with a case, a deadline that made critics balk.
“I thought, who has time to find an attorney in 10 days?” one source familiar with the training told the Guardian this week, under the condition of anonymity to protect against feared retribution from the Trump administration.
The source added: “There is no room to be kind; there is only urgency to make them leave [the US], one way or the other.”
According to the source, hundreds of immigration judges attended a mandatory presentation in recent days about “continuances” – a legal tool which has historically been used to give immigrants more time to find lawyers, build their cases or wait for approval of their applications for documents at another federal immigration agency.
The virtual training session was led by a veteran immigration judge, Keith Hunsucker of the board of immigration appeals, the immigration courts’ appellate branch. He denied over 80% of asylum cases for much of the time that he was on the bench in immigration court before moving on to other roles.
The visual presentation was called “Motions to Continue: Efficiently Advancing Cases to Completion”, according to images of the slides used that were shared with the Guardian. The training’s thrust was to tightly restrict continuances in favor of faster adjudications, even when granting more time would allow people to receive legal protections to remain in the US, such as a visa or green card they have qualified for or had approved and are simply awaiting. A deportation slams shut some of those pathways and yet is a much more likely outcome when continuances are denied and rulings are made abruptly.
The logic presented in Judge Hunsucker’s training was to cut out inefficiencies and avoidable delays, amid a backlog of roughly 3.2m pending immigration court cases nationally.
“Where a party lacks diligence and ‘sleeps on their rights,’ a continuance is unwarranted,” the presentation slides read.
But the development raises concerns that the crackdown will instead harm immigrants with legitimate cases.
The executive office for immigration review (EOIR), which houses the immigration courts, is not part of the independent judicial branch of the federal government. It sits within the Department of Justice, where the US attorney general can make precedential decisions and otherwise exercise control.
In response to the Guardian’s request for comment, an unnamed justice department spokesperson said in a statement, in part: “Reducing the immigration court backlog remains one of the highest priorities for this administration. The Justice Department is restoring integrity to our immigration system by hearing cases fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly, in accordance with the law.”
An unnamed EOIR spokesperson similarly replied that the agency “prioritizes the timely completion of all cases and immigration judges are obligated to adhere to current immigration law, regulations, precedent decisions, and EOIR policies to ensure cases do not languish [and] are handled in a timely and lawful manner. Unnecessary delay hurts both aliens with meritorious claims and the American public who wish to see aliens with non-meritorious claims removed as quickly as possible.”
Amid the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda, accelerated adjudications and extraordinarily large mass hearings have become fixtures of the immigration court system, with continuances fewer and farther between, and often for shorter lengths of time when granted, even for children.
The presentation slides shared with the Guardian appear to formalize that trend across immigration courts, cautioning judges that “some continuances are sought solely for the purpose of delay” and “persons illegally present in the United States who wish to remain have a substantial incentive to prolong litigation so they may avoid deportation as long as possible”.
“Continuance requests solely for dilatory purposes should not be countenanced by Immigration Judges,” one slide read, even though it has long been incumbent upon judges to discern between due process and unnecessary delays.
For instance, many documents are held up because of processing backlogs and tight quotas at US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which comes under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Such long waits are beyond the control of the applicant or the justice department.
In particular, the training suggests that an approved visa petition should not delay deportation proceedings if the visa itself is not yet available because of annual quotas but would be issued to the qualified recipient at a later, albeit unspecified, date. And it explicitly targets the special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) classification for abused, abandoned or neglected youth, as well as U non-immigrant status for survivors of especially egregious crimes.
The prospect of routine denials of continuances so someone can find a lawyer to represent them is also a harsh turn for immigrants pleading their cases.
From 2019 to 2024, only about a quarter of people with attorneys were ordered removed from the US, compared with over 60% who were unrepresented, according to the American Immigration Council.
But with demand exceeding supply, only about a fifth of immigrants were represented when they were ordered deported in June.
Yet the presentation warns that despite the desperate demand, immigration attorneys risk punitive measures for accepting what are deemed too many cases.
“Where a practitioner takes on more cases than he or she can responsibly and professionally handle,” the slides read, “it may be appropriate for an Immigration Judge to consider referral to EOIR disciplinary counsel for further action and possible sanction for a violation.”
Among the immigrants affected are abused and abandoned children and survivors of violent crime, according to the US government’s own training materials, which were shared exclusively with the Guardian.
Judges also appeared to be discouraged, under a hardline interpretation of existing policy guidance and laws, from giving people more than 10 days to find an attorney before proceeding with a case, a deadline that made critics balk.
“I thought, who has time to find an attorney in 10 days?” one source familiar with the training told the Guardian this week, under the condition of anonymity to protect against feared retribution from the Trump administration.
The source added: “There is no room to be kind; there is only urgency to make them leave [the US], one way or the other.”
According to the source, hundreds of immigration judges attended a mandatory presentation in recent days about “continuances” – a legal tool which has historically been used to give immigrants more time to find lawyers, build their cases or wait for approval of their applications for documents at another federal immigration agency.
The virtual training session was led by a veteran immigration judge, Keith Hunsucker of the board of immigration appeals, the immigration courts’ appellate branch. He denied over 80% of asylum cases for much of the time that he was on the bench in immigration court before moving on to other roles.
The visual presentation was called “Motions to Continue: Efficiently Advancing Cases to Completion”, according to images of the slides used that were shared with the Guardian. The training’s thrust was to tightly restrict continuances in favor of faster adjudications, even when granting more time would allow people to receive legal protections to remain in the US, such as a visa or green card they have qualified for or had approved and are simply awaiting. A deportation slams shut some of those pathways and yet is a much more likely outcome when continuances are denied and rulings are made abruptly.
The logic presented in Judge Hunsucker’s training was to cut out inefficiencies and avoidable delays, amid a backlog of roughly 3.2m pending immigration court cases nationally.
“Where a party lacks diligence and ‘sleeps on their rights,’ a continuance is unwarranted,” the presentation slides read.
But the development raises concerns that the crackdown will instead harm immigrants with legitimate cases.
The executive office for immigration review (EOIR), which houses the immigration courts, is not part of the independent judicial branch of the federal government. It sits within the Department of Justice, where the US attorney general can make precedential decisions and otherwise exercise control.
In response to the Guardian’s request for comment, an unnamed justice department spokesperson said in a statement, in part: “Reducing the immigration court backlog remains one of the highest priorities for this administration. The Justice Department is restoring integrity to our immigration system by hearing cases fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly, in accordance with the law.”
An unnamed EOIR spokesperson similarly replied that the agency “prioritizes the timely completion of all cases and immigration judges are obligated to adhere to current immigration law, regulations, precedent decisions, and EOIR policies to ensure cases do not languish [and] are handled in a timely and lawful manner. Unnecessary delay hurts both aliens with meritorious claims and the American public who wish to see aliens with non-meritorious claims removed as quickly as possible.”
Amid the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda, accelerated adjudications and extraordinarily large mass hearings have become fixtures of the immigration court system, with continuances fewer and farther between, and often for shorter lengths of time when granted, even for children.
The presentation slides shared with the Guardian appear to formalize that trend across immigration courts, cautioning judges that “some continuances are sought solely for the purpose of delay” and “persons illegally present in the United States who wish to remain have a substantial incentive to prolong litigation so they may avoid deportation as long as possible”.
“Continuance requests solely for dilatory purposes should not be countenanced by Immigration Judges,” one slide read, even though it has long been incumbent upon judges to discern between due process and unnecessary delays.
For instance, many documents are held up because of processing backlogs and tight quotas at US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which comes under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Such long waits are beyond the control of the applicant or the justice department.
In particular, the training suggests that an approved visa petition should not delay deportation proceedings if the visa itself is not yet available because of annual quotas but would be issued to the qualified recipient at a later, albeit unspecified, date. And it explicitly targets the special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) classification for abused, abandoned or neglected youth, as well as U non-immigrant status for survivors of especially egregious crimes.
The prospect of routine denials of continuances so someone can find a lawyer to represent them is also a harsh turn for immigrants pleading their cases.
From 2019 to 2024, only about a quarter of people with attorneys were ordered removed from the US, compared with over 60% who were unrepresented, according to the American Immigration Council.
But with demand exceeding supply, only about a fifth of immigrants were represented when they were ordered deported in June.
Yet the presentation warns that despite the desperate demand, immigration attorneys risk punitive measures for accepting what are deemed too many cases.
“Where a practitioner takes on more cases than he or she can responsibly and professionally handle,” the slides read, “it may be appropriate for an Immigration Judge to consider referral to EOIR disciplinary counsel for further action and possible sanction for a violation.”
Email Us With Your Ideas and Feedback xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Send me periodic Email Reminders with the link to this website