The Dictatorship
Court denies request to immediately block DOJ ‘slush fund’
A federal judge in Washington has denied a bid Wednesday brought by a watchdog group to immediately block the Justice Department’s “anti-weaponization” fund, for now choosing to trust the department’s assertions that it is not moving forward with the fund.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled immediately, denying Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked the Department of Justice from taking steps to create the fund.
Throughout the 30-minute hearing, the DOJ reiterated that the administration was not moving forward with the nearly $1.8 billion fund, which seeks to compensate individuals who allege they have been politically targeted or victimized by the DOJ.
Andrew Block, the only lawyer present for the government, repeatedly cited Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s June 2 congressional testimonyin which he said the administration was “not moving forward” with plans to create the fund.
Leon indicated he agreed with the DOJ’s position that the case appeared to be moot, saying he was not persuaded there was an issue for the court to decide regarding the creation of the fund. He issued a stern warning to the DOJ, saying, “Don’t play possum with this court!” — meaning he does not want to be deceived.
The plaintiffs argued Blanche’s testimony did not amount to an official cancellation. Nikhel Sus, CREW’s attorney, said Blanche “refused to memorialize that rescission,” or in other words, put it in writing. Sus said that was “highly unusual.” Leon responded, “This whole case is highly unusual to say the least.”
Leon asked the government twice why they would not just rescind the order that established the fund. Block responded, “I don’t know,” and pointed again to Blanche’s public statements about the fund’s future.
Both Leon and Sus raised the issue of Trump’s continued public defense of the fund. “It can still be an important issue and also not moving forward,” Block said. “That isn’t a direction to move forward with the fund.”
Although Leon rejected CREW’s bid for an immediate block, he indicated he is still considering its request for a longer-term block against the fund.
A block order from a separate federal judge in Virginia remains in effect until at least Friday.
Fallon Gallagher is a legal affairs reporter for MS NOW.
As a rule, JD Vance seems to go out of his way to say whatever Donald Trump wants him to say, but from time to time, contradictions emerge between the president and the vice president.
Take the recently passed housing bill, for example, which arrived at the White House earlier this week.
As part of an interview Tuesday night with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, the Ohio Republican said, “Frankly, Laura, I would love it if Democrats were willing — you know, not that they will agree with Republicans all the time — but if they were willing to work with us on lowering housing prices, on lowering gas prices, on actually making the lives of American citizens better. You know, we could have some real bipartisan compromise. That’s not what they’re talking about.”
I realize the vice president must be very busy, but it really isn’t that difficult to keep up with the basics of current events. In this case, when Vance said Democrats are unwilling to work with Republicans on priorities such as “lowering housing prices,” he turned reality on its head. It was literally last week when Democrats offered unanimous support for a bipartisan bill to address housing prices — legislation that members such as Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts helped to write.
Democrats recognized that doing so would offer the GOP some election-season bragging rights, but Democrats did it anyway because they have prioritized governing and “actually making the lives of American citizens better” over partisan considerations.
But Vance didn’t just contradict reality; he also contradicted his boss.
Just one day before the vice president brazenly misled a national television audience, Trump was asked about the pending housing bill. “It’s very bipartisan; that means the Democrats like it,” the president saidwhile acknowledging that he hasn’t yet decided whether to sign it.
In other words, when Vance said policymakers “could have some real bipartisan compromise,” he seemed indifferent to the fact that we’ve already had some real bipartisan compromise — a detail that even Trump was willing to acknowledge a day earlier.
Whether the vice president will suffer for publicly contradicting the president remains to be seen.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Trump made more than $1 billion in crypto ventures last year, financial disclosure shows
President Donald Trump reported more than $1.4 billion in cryptocurrency-related income in his latest annual financial disclosure released Tuesday, with digital assets emerging as the largest source of his personal earnings during his second term.
The 927-page disclosure, covering 2025 and filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, shows Trump earned more than $500 million from World Liberty Financial, the cryptocurrency company he co-founded in 2024 with his sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. He also reported another $635 million in income tied to sales of the $TRUMP meme coin.
Speaking with reporters Wednesday morning before leaving for events in North Dakota, Trump said that others choose his investments without his input.
“I’ve made a lot of money before I became president, and they invest my money, and I don’t talk to them,” he said. “So, I have many people… I don’t know what they call closed accounts or something. You put your money in, and that’s it. I don’t talk to them. They’re big institutions, and they run it.”
The president also earned hundreds of millions of dollars in income from several of his properties in 2025, including $122 million from Trump Doral, $77.5 million from Mar-a-Lago and $39 million from Trump Tower Chicago.
The filing lists more than $80 million in income from legal settlements with media companies including ABC, CBS, Meta, YouTube and X. Trump also reported at least $8.3 million in royalties from books and branded merchandise, including $4.7 million from Trump watches and more than $200,000 in royalties from the God Bless the USA Bible, a branded edition promoted in partnership with singer Lee Greenwood.
The disclosure illustrates a significant shift in Trump’s business portfolio. While his wealth has long centered on hotels, golf courses and commercial real estate, cryptocurrency has emerged as his largest revenue driver. Reuters previously estimated the Trump family has generated at least $2.3 billionin profits from crypto-related ventures since Trump returned to the presidency.
The report follows additional ethics disclosuresreleased in May showing hundreds of millions of dollars in securities transactions involving major U.S. companies and municipal bonds. At the time, the Trump Organization saidthose investments were managed by outside financial institutions through discretionary accounts and that neither Trump nor his family directed individual trading decisions.
Soorin Kim contributed to this report.
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.
Soorin Kim is a White House producer with MS NOW.
The Dictatorship
GOP officials eye restrictions on pregnant travelers following Supreme Court ruling
The ruling wasn’t as lopsided as many legal observers expected, but in Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the idea that a president can override the 14th Amendment to the Constitution with an executive order. Although the 5-4 ruling left in place a status quo that had existed for generations, much of the right did not respond well to the news.
Much of the outrage from conservatives was tiresome and predictable, but one element of the pushback to the high court’s ruling stood out, for unfortunate reasons.
A couple of hours after the decision was issued, Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado argued by way of social media that the State Department “should immediately cease to give out visas to pregnant applicants.” Soon after, one of her colleagues went a step further by announcing plans for a legislative solution.
Republican Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee said Tuesday he’s moving forward with plans for legislation that he’s calling the Anchors Away Act, which would ban certain pregnant foreign women from entering the United States.
“So, I have a bill; it will be called ‘Anchors Away,’ which, look, if you’re not a U.S. citizen, if you’re not a green card holder and you have a child on U.S. soil, today, that child will be a U.S. citizen,” Ogles said in a video posted to social media. “Under my bill, under my legislation, we fix that. … So in short, what this bill does is, if you are a pregnant woman, you can’t come into this country. You got to be a citizen, be here, you have to be a green card holder. So if you’re pregnant and you don’t have one of those statuses, no admittance allowed,” he continued.
As HuffPost noted“The ‘anchor’ part of Ogles’ bill refers to the pejorative term, ‘anchor babies,’ used by many conservatives to describe children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants.”
The Tennessee Republican also took his pitch to Fox News. “Look, if you’re pregnant and you’re from a foreign nation, you know what?” Coal says. “It’s time for Congress to pass a law saying you can’t come here.”
And while Ogles and Boebert aren’t exactly known for their legislative prowess, even if the House were to pass such a measure, it would never clear the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.
As the day progressed, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller also appeared on Fox News, and when asked whether the U.S. is prepared to start “banning pregnant women,” Miller didn’t say no, replying instead that there are “a lot of things” the Trump administration will take “a hard look” at.
On Wednesday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin also said the administration is prepared to “look at” restrictions on pregnant travelers to the U.S.
I won’t pretend to know what, if anything, will come of this, but I do have a question for proponents of these restrictions: How exactly would U.S. officials go about determining whether someone entering the country is pregnant?
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
- Birthright citizens score
- Vance contradicts Trump about bipartisan cooperation on housing bill
- Trump made more than $1 billion in crypto ventures last year, financial disclosure shows
- GOP officials eye restrictions on pregnant travelers following Supreme Court ruling
- The authoritarian power play happening at the Supreme Court
- Democratic socialists are winning. Their ambitions don’t stop at Capitol Hill.
- Why the World Cup is a royal affair
- ‘It’s not very often that you get, like, really great news from Bosnia’
- Vance contradicts Trump about bipartisan cooperation on housing bill
- Bosnia’s starting lineup is also a map of its war
-
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
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words