The Dictatorship
Trump is trying to dramatically increase his power. Two judges aren’t having it — for now.
On Friday, a federal judge in Rhode Island granted a temporary restraining order to 22 states and Washington, D.C, that asked for a pause of Trump’s proposed pause on federal spending. The decision was hot on the heels of a Washington federal judge’s decision to, at least temporarily, halt Trump’s proposed spending freeze as applied to open grants. On Monday evening, the judge in the Washington case extended her decision to pause the freeze.
If this invokes school civics lessons that taught that Congress, not the president, has the power of the purse, you’re right.
The freeze in question came last week when, in a short memothe Trump administration, via the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, sought to temporarily freeze an enormous swath of federal funding, apparently including everything but funding for programs that provide direct assistance to people, such as Social Security and Medicare. This is money that supports programs including early childhood education, assistance for disaster victims and aid for farmworkers. The Trump’s administration’s stated purpose was to ensure that federal funds were not used to support “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering.”
If this invokes school civics lessons that taught that Congress, not the president, has the power of the purse, you’re right.
Trump’s attempt to, even temporarily, push pause on federal grants and loans most likely flies in the face of our constitutionally constructed separation of powers, not to mention a decades-old federal statute, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The act gives the president the power to push pause on Congress’ spending decisions only in limited situations, and only with the subsequent consent of Congress. Essentially, with respect to certain federal funds, the president can make proposed deferrals regarding the spending of those funds, but Congress can refuse that request within 45 days.
There is a very, very good argument that Trump’s proposed funding freeze violates the act. Trump did not fulfill the statutory requirements that the act lays out, and he seems to be requesting the pause of funds outside the scope of those he is allowed to seek to pause.
Thus far, this feels like a fairly open and shut case against the Trump administration. So what will the Trump administration argue when faced with a federal law that certainly appears to prohibit this federal funding freeze?
For one, the Trump administration could argue that the federal law itself is unconstitutional. It is not a problem to violate a law if the law itself is invalid.
The president could argue that while Congress has the power to spend money, under the Constitution, the president has the power to stop spending money, even when Congress has appropriated it for a specific purpose. To be clear, that argument contradicts decades of understanding about what the Constitution’s spending clause provides, not to mention the Impoundment Act. It also borders on nonsensical. The Constitution directs the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Trump would have to argue that faithfully executing the laws means, in part, undermining Congress’ spending decisions. This would seem to make the very existence of Congress a bit superfluous.
The Trump administration could argue that the federal law itself is unconstitutional. It is not a problem to violate a law if the law itself is invalid.
I know what you’re going to say next. “But Trump appointed one-third of this conservative Supreme Court; won’t it automatically rule in his favor?” And the answer is, no, I don’t think it will. Federal judges have lifetime appointments for a reason, so they aren’t beholden to the public or the presidents who appoint them. President Richard Nixon filled four Supreme Court seats. Every one of those justices ruled against Nixon in a landmark case in which the justices unanimously concluded that he had to turn over his secret Oval Office recordings to a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal.
Get ready for this pattern to continue. Step 1: The Trump administration takes an action that expands the power of the executive branch and most likely violates federal law. Step 2: Someone sues and a federal judge blocks the Trump administration’s action. Step 3: The Trump administration argues that the law blocking its ability to proceed itself violates the Constitution. Under this argument, even if the Trump administration violated a federal law, it had the right to do so, because the law itself is invalid. Step 4: We collectively hold our breath while we wait for a final word from the Supreme Court.
In a country where disagreement is the norm, one thing should be beyond debate: Trump is seeking to dramatically increase the power of the presidency. And at least for now, two federal judges are not having it. The federal judge in Rhode Island specifically found that “there is no evidence that the Executive has followed the [Impoundment Control Act of 1974] by notifying Congress and thereby effectuating a potentially legally permitted so-called ‘pause.’” The judge concluded that “[t]he Court finds that the record now before it substantiates the likelihood of a successful claim that the Executive’s actions violate the Constitution and statutes of the United States.” We will have to see whether this holds as the case proceeds.
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, is the host of the “Passing Judgment” podcast. She is also the director of the Public Service Institute at Loyola Law School, director of Loyola’s Journalist Law School and former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.
The Dictatorship
Truth Social leadership shake-up: Kevin McGurn steps in amid stock collapse
NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump business behind Truth Social is replacing a former congressman and big supporter of the U.S. president as the leader of the social media platform after a stock collapse that wiped out billions in investor wealth.
Devin Nunes, a former California congressmen in Donald Trump’s first term, is being replaced temporarily by digital media executive Kevin McGurn as chief executive officer. The company, Trump Media & Technology, didn’t give a reason for Nunes leaving or provide a timeline for his permanent replacement.
After soaring shortly before Trump’s re-election in November 2024, stock in the company plunged 67%, wiping out more than $6 billion in investor wealth.
Trump Media was formed by the Trump family as an alternative to social media giants that had barred him from posting on their platforms after the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots. It said it would not only take on Facebook and Twitter as a “free speech” alternative, but eventually could become a media giant competing with streaming services such as Netflix.
AP AUDIO: Trump media company replaces ex-congressman Nunes as CEO after stock plunge that wiped out billions
AP correspondent Jennifer King reports on a leadership shuffle at the Trump media company.
The stock soared, but it never gained traction with a wide audience despite the president’s frequent use of it for major political announcements, slammed by government ethics experts as a conflict of interest with the presidency.
Since it went public two years ago, Trump Media has lost more than $1.1 billion. Nunes got total compensation of $47 million in 2024, the last year for which figures are available.
The new CEO McGurn said in statement that the company was “poised to take off.”
“In carrying President Trump’s unique, singular vision and message, Truth Social stands for the most powerful brand and voice in history of social media and beyond,” he said.
The Trump Organization didn’t immediately responded to a request for comment.
The company has recently branched into cryptocurrency and another hot business, prediction markets. The latter are online betting venues where people can wager on sports, entertainment and political events.
Both cryptocurrencies and prediction markets have gotten boosts from the Trump administration, in terms of lighter regulation and outright promotion. Last year, for instance, the Trump established a national bitcoin reserve, pushing up the value of that currency.
McGurn, has worked at NBC Universal, Hulu and DoubleClick, among other companies, according to his LinkedIn profile. He is also the CEO of a new shell company that Trump’s two oldest sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, joined last year to buy U.S. manufacturers. That company originally stated in regulatory filings that it would be targeting businesses hoping to tap federal contracts, which would be awarded by the same government run by their father.
The Trump Organization and the White House have repeatedly denied that there are conflicts of interest between Trump’s role as president and the family business.
The Dictatorship
What the DOJ’s Southern Poverty Law Center indictment is really about
ByMichael Edison Hayden
As one of the most high-profile employees of the Southern Poverty Law Center for five years — and as someone who has been outspokenly critical of the organization — I never once heard of the program that allegedly involved paying sources within the Ku Klux Klan, National Alliance and Aryan Nations until the Justice Department published its indictment this week.
What I did hear, frequently, was people in the MAGA movement saying we were some kind of criminal syndicate — part of a sustained propaganda effort to delegitimize the work we did tracking and labeling extremist groups.
Although I find the notion of paying extremists distasteful, even unethical, the indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda. And, the SPLC, for its part, has called these charges “false allegations.”
One quote from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s press conference about the charges against the SPLC stood out to me as particularly absurd:
“The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” he said on Tuesday afternoon.

Imagine, for a moment, believing the SPLC — or any other civil rights organization — needed to fraudulently manufacture racism to sell it in today’s America. Just two months ago, the president shared an artificial intelligence-generated video depicting his Black predecessor and his predecessor’s Black wife as primates. In early 2025, the Trump administration suspended refugee admissions from majority non-white countries while investing in a special program to fast-track white South African Afrikaners into the United States. Racism is not a rare commodity in this country to be manufactured — it’s cheap and easy to find.
A closer look at the indictment raises more red flags. For one, the KKK, National Alliance and Aryan Nations have been largely defanged for years. You rarely hear those names now unless you’re a historian focused on the white supremacist movement. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of criminal wrongdoing on its own, but it does show that this DOJ, in 2026, had to reach back as far as 2013 to find a relatively obscure SPLC program — one that, as a former spokesperson, I had never even heard of.
Another issue is the indictment’s suggestion that the SPLC played a role in planning the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, based on the claim that an informant was “part of a leadership group.” The idea that an informant could have planted the seed for a gathering of white supremacists of that magnitude is completely implausible. We don’t need to speculate about the origins of that deadly event: Unite the Right was effectively a sequel to a similar rally in Charlottesville in May 2017, driven by widespread outrage within the movement over the removal of Confederate statues. Unicorn Riot preserved reams of Discord logs attesting to it.
The indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda.
So, leaving open the possibility that something comes out in the trial that I don’t know about yet, these charges look like a piece of political theater to shore up a wayward MAGA base beleaguered by the scandal around Jeffrey Epstein and an increasingly unwieldy debacle in Iran. It’s a MAGA base that understands the SPLC as one of the primary villains in its propaganda stories and enjoys seeing it suffer.
But if the DOJ argues that paying informants furthers hate, and that this makes the use of paid informants fraudulent, won’t the SPLC’s lawyers simply demonstrate how those efforts contributed to these groups no longer being around? If the SPLC propped up the National Alliance to defraud donors, why is it essentially defunct? Why does the once robust Aryan Nations group no longer exist?
If you’ve read this far and assumed I have an incentive to support my former employer, I don’t. I have a different life now — with a book out, a podcast and teaching. After producing some of the SPLC’s more notable investigative stories from 2018 to 2023, I’ve repeatedly criticized them in media appearances.

As chronicled in my book, “Strange People on the Hill,” the SPLC settled with me out of court after I raised allegations of racial discrimination and union busting against them. I have also publicly accused the organization of deliberately taking a lower profile during President Donald Trump’s second term — hoping to evade the kind of targeting that is befalling it now. The SPLC has done many things over the years, good and bad. It has been invaluable in tracing how MAGA brought fringe racist ideas into the mainstream conservative movement. It has also been clumsy, reactionary and, at times, foolish. This program involving paid informants may indeed be one of those clumsy and foolish chapters.
But to understand why a weaponized DOJ might choose this particular case amid all of the white-collar crimes it isn’t pursuing in America today, you first need to understand the narrative that’s been built around the SPLC for years — and how useful it has become to the corrupt men who run this country.
Michael Edison Hayden
Michael Edison Hayden is a leading expert on far-right extremism in the United States. His debut book, “Strange People on Blue Light News”— a chronicle of a West Virginia town in the five years following a white nationalist group’s purchase of a local castle — will be published by Bold Type Books/Hachette on April 7, 2026. Hayden also co-hosts the podcast, “Posting Through It,” with new episodes released every Monday and Thursday.
The Dictatorship
Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum
A Virginia judge on Wednesday blocked the certification of a redistricting referendum that allows the state to redraw its congressional and legislative maps, less than 24 hours after voters approved the measure.
The rulingissued by Tazewell County Circuit Court, halts state officials from finalizing the results of the ballot measure, which sought to overhaul Virginia’s redistricting process.
This latest move prevents the Virginia Department of Elections and other officials from implementing the new redistricting referendum unless it is overturned by a higher court.
Other states attempting similar redistricting moves have faced lengthy legal battlesleaving the ultimate outcome uncertain.
Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled Wednesday that the redistricting referendum violated parts of Virginia’s Constitution, including how such amendments must be approved and submitted to voters.
Hurley said the proposal had not been properly authorized by the General Assembly before being submitted to voters. The judge also called the ballot language “flagrantly misleading” and did not accurately describe the measure to voters.
The attorney general’s office said in a statement that it plans to immediately appeal the decision.
“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote,” Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement. “We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”
Redistricting has long been a contentious issue in Virginia, as in many states, with debates often centered on partisan gerrymandering and the fairness of electoral maps.
The move was considered a victory for Democrats and could offer a potential boost for the party as they head into the midterms because the proposed redraw could expand their advantage to 10-1.
For now, the judge’s order leaves Virginia’s redistricting process unchanged and raises new questions about the viability of reform efforts moving forward. Both sides are likely to press ahead with a prolonged legal fight.
The Virginia Supreme Court paused an earlier rulingby Hurley ahead of the referendum, which allowed Tuesday’s vote to move forward while it reviews the case, which remains pending.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?








