Congress

A judge sided with Trump. Behind the scenes, he was lobbying for a nomination.

Published

1 year ago

June 20, 2025

A Florida state judge was lobbying for a seat on the federal bench. After he sided with the president in a defamation case, Donald Trump gave him one.

Ed Artau, now a nominee to be a district court judge in Florida, met with staff in the office of Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott to angle for the nomination less than two weeks after Trump’s election last fall, according to a new Senate disclosure obtained by Blue Light News. In the midst of his interviews, Artau was part of a panel of judges that ruled in Trump’s favor in the president’s case against members of the Pulitzer Prize Board.

About two weeks after the court published his opinion — which called for the overturning of a landmark Supreme Court case that made it harder for public officials to sue journalists — he interviewed with the White House Counsel’s Office. In May, Trump announced his nomination to the federal judiciary.

Critics raised concerns about Artau’s impartiality at the time of the announcement, in light of his ruling in the Pulitzer case. But the overlapping timeline of that decision with his meetings with Senate staff and the White House Counsel’s Office has not previously been reported.

Artau did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said Trump had full confidence in his nominee and anticipated Artau’s confirmation.

“The standards of the President’s judicial nominations are simple: restoring law and order, ending the weaponization of the judicial branch, and interpreting the Constitution as written,” Fields said. “Ed Artau has demonstrated these principles throughout his esteemed career and will continue to do so as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.”

The president has wide latitude to nominate whomever he wishes to the federal bench. But Artau’s vehement defense of Trump — while seeking a nomination from his administration — raises ethical questions about his partiality in the Pulitzer case. The administration’s decision to nominate Artau after that opinion also reflects a pattern of elevating those who have sought to ingratiate themselves with Trump.

“Coming across as an archpartisan is now perceived as something that can help your cause with President Trump,” Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said in an interview. “The idea that you would have a judge thinking you know, it’s a good idea to go on the warpath in support of the President, is really a new development.”

According to his official Senate questionnaire, Artau met with Scott’s general counsel on Nov. 14 to discuss his interest in the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.) was appointed to the Senate in January to succeed now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Artau contacted her office to indicate interest in the nomination. At some point after that, Artau said he was informed the senators would recommend him.

On Feb. 12, the court published his opinion in Trump’s favor in the defamation case against the Pulitzer Board, and on Feb. 27, he interviewed with attorneys from the White House Counsel’s Office.

Thereafter, he was informed that he was under consideration for the nomination, and on May 27, he met with Trump, according to Artau’s answers provided in the questionnaire. Trump announced he would nominate Artau to be a district judge in South Florida the next day, writing in a post on Truth Social that Artau has “a GREAT track record of restoring LAW AND ORDER and, most importantly, Common Sense.”

In the Senate disclosure, Artau affirmed no one involved in the judicial nomination selection process “discussed with [him] any currently pending or specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning [his] position on such case, issue, or question.”

Scott’s office did not respond to a request for comment. Moody’s office declined to comment.

Artau’s opinion in the defamation case was unusual, in part because the ruling concerned a largely procedural matter. Trump had sued the Pulitzer Board for defamation after he requested that it rescind the 2018 awards given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of Russian election interference and ties to Trump’s orbit. The three-judge panel in Florida, including Artau, allowed the case to proceed.

“’FAKE NEWS.’ ‘The phony Witch Hunt.’ And ‘a big hoax.’ President Donald J. Trump has publicly used these phrases to describe the now-debunked allegations that he colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election,” Artau wrote in his concurring opinion. “[T]he board members vouched for the truth of reporting that had been debunked by all credible sources charged with investigating the false claim that the President colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election.” (The Pulitzer Board has stood by its decision to grant them the award.)

Yet Artau’s opinion also suggested going further, arguing the Supreme Court precedent known as New York Times Company v. Sullivan wrongly applied the First Amendment in its ruling that required a public official to prove “actual malice” in a defamation case. While maintaining that the President had satisfied the standard in his case against the Pulitzer Board, Artau called for the Supreme Court to revisit the matter — a controversial position that Trump and his lawyers support.

Trump has repeatedly sought to punish news outlets who have written critical coverage of him. Among those efforts, he sued BLN for $475 million in a defamation case that alleged the network sought to undermine him politically. In the complaint, his lawyers argued the standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan should not apply where the media “seeks to participate in the political arena by offering propaganda.” A judge dismissed the case, but Trump’s appeal remains pending.

More recently, ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos settled with Trump in a defamation lawsuit after Stephanopoulos mischaracterized the outcome of E. Jean Carroll’s civil suit against Trump that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.

Moving the federal judiciary to the right was a marquee accomplishment of Trump’s first term, during which he installed hundreds of judges on the bench and three Supreme Court justices. In recent months, his political operation has become increasingly critical of judges deemed hostile to his agenda and called for impeaching those who have ruled against him.

Artau is currently a judge on the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida, where he has served since he was appointed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2020. He earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1988.

Congress

Senate confirms Blanche as attorney general

Published

2 days ago

August 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate Saturday confirmed Todd Blanche to be attorney general, following a weeks-long struggle with a handful of wary Republicans.

The Senate voted 50-49 to approve him, with GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joining with Democrats in opposition.

Blanche, President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, has been serving as acting attorney general since Pam Bondi’s ouster in April. Questions about Blanche’s potential conflicts of interest from representing Trump, as well as his role in the creation of a $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” as part of Trump’s settlement this spring with the IRS, created headwinds to his confirmation among a key group of Senate Republicans.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Louisiana Republican who lost re-election after Trump endorsed a primary challenger, helped Blanche clinch his 50th vote Friday. He said Blanche wasn’t perfect but that he wasn’t sure Trump would pick someone better to lead the Justice Department.

“The choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche,” Cassidy said on the Senate floor. “It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”

Cassidy’s support came after Blanche had already spent weeks negotiating with Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas, who vetted his nomination as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cornyn struck an agreement with Blanche Sunday for the DOJ to curtail the payout fund and rein in a deal to exempt Trump from IRS audits.

Cassidy’s support came hours after Murkowski announced that she would oppose Blanche’s nomination, putting it on the brink of potential failure. Between unified opposition from Democrats and Sen. Mitch McConnell’s absence for health reasons, Blanche could only lose two Republicans and still be confirmed.

Hours before Friday’s vote, Murkowski told reporters she spoke with Blanche multiple times but that she was “good with where I am.” She said there was no “one” thing that motivated her decision.

“If there was one thing, we might be able to go back to the White House and say ‘Hey, can we work on this one thing,’” she said. “But for me it was a compilation.”

She added that she believed the anti-weaponization fund is “pretty dead” but “what is not so clear” are the audit immunity provisions of Trump’s IRS agreement, “which I just think are viewed by so many in this country as kind of a special and sweet deal for the president and his family.”

Congress

Senate passes funding bill to avert October shutdown

Published

2 days ago

August 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate passed a bill Saturday to fund the government beyond the midterm elections, putting the onus back on the House to head off a shutdown looming Oct. 1.

The Senate approved the measure in a bipartisan 90-6 vote, with Sen. Darline Graham of South Carolina voting present. The bill would fund federal agencies through Dec. 11 at current levels, with some exceptions. Senate leaders sped up consideration of the legislation as part of an agreement reached Saturday morning to allow members to leave for August recess.

The House and Senate have now each passed different bills aimed at averting a shutdown at the end of the fiscal year. The House bill would fund the government through Dec. 4.

The Senate legislation sets up a year-end standoff over the Trump administration’s controversial plan to put political appointees in charge of approving federal grants. The bill would block the administration from finalizing that rule during the length of the stopgap — and lawmakers are already expecting a December brawl over the issue.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said this week that he’s going to “fight like hell” in December to ensure Congress doesn’t further obstruct the grant overhaul.

But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are resistant to the White House approach to grants. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she will “continue to oppose” the Trump administration plans “because I think they politicize the grants process, and I don’t want that to occur.” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on Senate Appropriations, said she too would “welcome the fight.”

The Senate rejected an amendment from Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) intended to ensure that a ban on intoxicating hemp products kicks in come November, after Senate leaders at the White House’s urging included language in the funding bill to delay it.

The Senate bill includes language Democrats sought to ensure Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol don’t get any new funding under the patch. Republicans enacted $70 billion for those agencies along party lines earlier this year.

That prohibition could be contentious in the House.

Rep. John Rutherford (R-Fla.) said in an interview that the provision “could be a dealbreaker” and that he’s “not a fan” of the Senate version. Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) said Tuesday that he would say he’s undecided if GOP leadership whipped his vote on the Senate stopgap.

“I do not like the Senate language,” Van Drew said, noting the grant approval provision. “It’s one I would want to know what the president thinks.”

The White House issued a statement of administration policy in support of the Senate’s funding bill. No such memo was issued for the House bill, which did not include the funding increases and authorizations the White House requested.

“Every Member of Congress should support passage of this [continuing resolution] to keep the Government open as discussions on full year appropriations continue,” it reads.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democratic appropriator in the House, praised the Senate measure for including the grant and immigration enforcement language.

“This bill is a clear improvement over the House Republican continuing resolution, but we are still nearly two months away from the end of the fiscal year and should be working together to pass full-year funding bills,” she said in a statement.

Mia McCarthy and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

Senate eyes the exit after GOP-Trump deal

Published

2 days ago

August 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate is aiming to leave Washington for a five-week recess early Saturday after Republicans cut a deal with President Donald Trump to punt some of their priorities, including a framework for a party-line spending plan.

The Senate is trying to lock in an agreement that would set up votes on a college sports bill, a stopgap government funding bill, Todd Blanche’s attorney general nomination and GOP voter ID legislation, according to a copy of an internal notice reviewed by Blue Light News.

The Senate would then leave Washington until mid-September.

Any one senator could object to the tentative deal, forcing it to be altered or dragging the Senate deeper into the weekend. Senators believe there are still objections to advancing the college sports bill. Democrats are also waiting to see if one of their own will prevent speeding up Blanche’s confirmation.

The breakthrough is a U-turn from earlier Friday evening, when Republican senators emerged from a closed-door meeting predicting they would have to spend Saturday trying to break a stalemate within the party about how to wrap final votes before recess.

Shortly after that meeting, Trump spoke by phone with Senate Republicans including Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Rick Scott of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah about the path forward for the GOP’s lengthy to-do list.

During the call, according to Johnson, Trump agreed to punt a vote on a budget blueprint for a third party-line spending bill until later in the year. Lee, who has been pushing for action on the separate SAVE America Act, also agreed to drop his demand for a formal, roll call vote on adjourning given the understanding with the president.

“I think the conclusion of the conference – and we had a discussion with the president and he agrees – [is] don’t take the vote tonight,” Johnson said after the meeting in Thune’s office.

Republicans were in talks with the White House throughout Friday. A White House official granted anonymity said Friday evening that “we’re continuing to have productive conversations with senators to advance several legislative priorities.”