The Dictatorship
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority eyes more power for the president
WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts has led the Supreme Court ‘s conservative majority on a steady march of increasing the power of the presidency, starting well before Donald Trump’s time in the White House.
The justices could take the next step in a case being argued Monday that calls for a unanimous 90-year-old decision limiting executive authority to be overturned.
The court’s conservatives, liberal Justice Elena Kagan noted in September, seem to be “raring to take that action.”
They already have allowed Trump, in the opening months of the Republican’s second term, to fire almost everyone he has wanted, despite the court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor that prohibits the president from removing the heads of independent agencies without cause.
The officials include Rebecca Slaughterwhose firing from the Federal Trade Commission is at issue in the current case, as well as officials from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The only officials who have so far survived efforts to remove them are Lisa Cooka Federal Reserve governor, and Shira Perlmuttera copyright official with the Library of Congress. The court already has suggested that it will view the Fed differently from other independent agencies, and Trump has said he wants her out because of allegations of mortgage fraud. Cook says she did nothing wrong.
Humphrey’s Executor has long been a target of the conservative legal movement that has embraced an expansive view of presidential power known as the unitary executive.
The case before the high court involves the same agency, the FTC, that was at issue in 1935. The justices established that presidents — Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt at the time — could not fire the appointed leaders of the alphabet soup of federal agencies without cause.
The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the air waves and much else.
Proponents of the unitary executive theory have said the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong: Federal agencies that are part of the executive branch answer to the president, and that includes the ability to fire their leaders at will.
As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 1988 dissent that has taken on mythical status among conservatives, “this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power.”
Since 2010 and under Roberts’ leadership, the Supreme Court has steadily whittled away at laws restricting the president’s ability to fire people.
In 2020, Roberts wrote for the court that “the President’s removal power is the rule, not the exception” in a decision upholding Trump’s firing of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite job protections similar to those upheld in Humphrey’s case.
In the 2024 immunity decision that spared Trump from being prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, Roberts included the power to fire among the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” powers that Congress lacks the authority to restrict.
But according to legal historians and even a prominent proponent of the originalism approach to interpreting the Constitution that is favored by conservatives, Roberts may be wrong about the history underpinning the unitary executive.
“Both the text and the history of Article II are far more equivocal than the current Court has been suggesting,” wrote Caleb Nelson, a University of Virginia law professor who once served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.
Jane Manners, a Fordham University law professor, said she and other historians filed briefs with the court to provide history and context about the removal power in the country’s early years that also could lead the court to revise its views. “I’m not holding my breath,” she said.
Slaughter’s lawyers embrace the historians’ arguments, telling the court that limits on Trump’s power are consistent with the Constitution and U.S. history.
The Justice Department argues Trump can fire board members for any reason as he works to carry out his agenda and that the precedent should be tossed aside.
“Humphrey’s Executor was always egregiously wrong,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.
A second question in the case could affect Cook, the Fed governor. Even if a firing turns out to be illegal, the court wants to decide whether judges have the power to reinstate someone.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote earlier this year that fired employees who win in court can likely get back pay, but not reinstatement.
That might affect Cook’s ability to remain in her job. The justices have seemed wary about the economic uncertainty that might result if Trump can fire the leaders of the central bank. The court will hear separate arguments in January about whether Cook can remain in her job as her court case challenging her firing proceeds.
The Dictatorship
Iran negotiator or private investor? Raskin launches investigation into Jared Kushner.
House Judiciary Democrats are launching a new investigation into President Donald Trump’s son-in-law — and Iran ceasefire negotiator — Jared Kushner, citing his “glaring and incurable conflict of interest.”
In a letter obtained first by MS NOW, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., writes that Kushner’s dual roles as Trump administration peace envoy and leader of a private equity firm have “been haunting American foreign policy since President Trump returned to Washington in 2025,” with the Iran war only compounding concerns that Kushner’s financial work could distort his priorities.
“Your client Saudi Arabia,” Raskin writes, “wants to see a continuation and escalation of President Trump’s Iran war, but the American people have an interest in minimizing the loss of American lives and treasure in this conflict.”
“To whom do your professional obligations and fiduciary duties belong?” Raskin asks in the letter, which was sent to Kushner, his firm, and the State Department on Thursday.

Kushner, who is married to Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka, founded the investment firm Affinity Partners in 2021 after serving as a senior adviser during Trump’s first administration.
Affinity’s largest and earliest investor, according to The New York Timesis Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which is led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The fund invested roughly $2 billion after the first Trump White House ended. Sovereign wealth funds tied to other Gulf nations, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have also invested.
Affinity has earned a 25% rate of return since 2021, according to a person familiar with the firm’s internal dynamics.
Since Trump returned to the White House, Kushner has taken on the role of peace envoy, working on negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Hamas and, most recently, the U.S. and Iran. The latter two, critics note, are in the region that is the source of sizable investments in Kushner’s firm.
“You cannot both be a diplomat and a financial pawn of the Saudi monarchy at the same time,” Raskin writes in the letter. “You cannot faithfully represent the United States with billions of dollars in Saudi and Emirati cash burning a hole in every pocket of every suit you own.”
In a statement shared with MS NOW, Ian Brekke, chief legal officer for Affinity, said Kushner “has complied with all applicable laws and requirements and has always operated in the best interests of the United States.”
“Jared is not raising funds and has not done business in Gaza, Ukraine or Iran and has no intention to do so,” Brekke said.
In response to a March report in The New York Times that Kushner had taken recent steps to raise money for his firm from governments in the Middle East, Brekke wrote, “Affinity had early conversations with its anchor investor and does not intend to take in any additional capital while Jared is volunteering for the government.”
And in a statement to MS NOW, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Kushner had “sacrificed time with his family and livelihood” to work on the Trump administration’s initiatives overseas. She called Raskin “an attention-seeking loser who has saved zero lives and hasn’t accomplished anything.”
As part of the new House Judiciary investigation that Democrats are unilaterally launching, Raskin is asking Kushner to hand over a trove of materials tied to his work for Affinity and with the government.
The documents Raskin wants include: records of his communications with Saudi, Emirati, Qatari, and Israeli officials and their state-linked investment funds dating back to 2022; the financial records detailing all investors in his Affinity investment fund; records of meetings with investors dating back to July2024; and all communications relating to financial investments in Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, and other areas where Kushner has played a role as a negotiator.

Raskin is also requesting Kushner’s communications with the White House and the Trump campaign, including with Trump himself, dating back to July 2024 regarding his role in the new administration.
While Kushner is unlikely to play ball with Democrats — and as long as Republicans don’t side with Democrats, Raskin doesn’t have the unilateral ability to subpoena Kushner — the inquiry is a bit of a preview of the investigations Democrats will launch should their party win control of the House.
As the midterms approach, Democrats are pledging to make rooting out corruption in the Trump administration a central focus. And while Kushner could ignore Raskin now, that would be much more difficult next year if Democrats take back the committee gavels.
For Raskin, this is the latest step in a yearslong effort to review Kushner’s activities.
In 2023, while serving as ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Raskin wrote to Kushner questioning whether his business interests may have influenced his work during the first Trump administration.
In 2024, Raskin and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., called on the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel to review possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
The Dictatorship
House extends surveillance powers until April 30 after late-night revolt sinks GOP plan
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House early Friday approved a short-term renewal until April 30 of a controversial surveillance programused by U.S. spy agencies in a post-midnight vote after Republicans revolted and refused President Donald Trump’s push for a longer extension.
GOP leaders rushed lawmakers back into session to late Thursday with a series of back-to-back votes that collapsed in dramatic failure, before they quickly pushed ahead the stopgap measure as they race to keep the surveillance program running past Monday’s expiration date.
First they unveiled a new plan that would have extended the program for five years, with revisions. Then they tried to salvage a shorter 18-month renewal that Trump had demanded and Speaker Mike Johnson had previously backed. Some 20 Republicans joined most Democrats in blocking its advance.
Shortly after 2 a.m. they quickly agreed to the 10-day extension, which was agreed to on a voice vote without a formal roll call. It next goes to the Senate, which is gaveling for a rare Friday session, as Congress races to keep the surveillance program running.
“We were very close tonight,” said Johnson after the late-night action.
But Democrats blasted the middle-of-the-night voting as amateur hour. “Are you kidding me? Who the hell is running this place?” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., during a fiery floor debate.
At the center of the standoff that has stretched throughout the week is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,which permits the CIA, National Security Agency, FBI and other agencies to collect and analyze vast amounts of overseas communications without a warrant. In doing so, they can incidentally sweep up communications involving Americans who interact with foreign targets.
U.S. officials say the authority is critical to disrupting terrorist plots, cyber intrusions and foreign espionage.
Surveillance program fight is a debate over privacy and security
Its path to passage has teetered all week in a familiar fight, as lawmakers weigh civil liberties concerns against intelligence officials’ warnings about national security risks.
Opponents of the surveillance tool point to past misuses. FBI officials repeatedly violated their own standards when searching intelligence related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and racial justice protests in 2020, according to a 2024 court order.
Trump and his allies had lobbied aggressively all week for a clean renewal of the program, without changes.
A group of Republicans traveled to the White House on Tuesday, and on Wednesday CIA Director John Ratcliffe spoke directly with GOP lawmakers. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Thursday there had “been negotiations late into the night with the White House and some of our members.”
“I am asking Republicans to UNIFY, and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean Bill to the floor,” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week. “We need to stick together.”
The result of days of negotiations
Thursday’s proceedings came to a standstill as lawmakers retreated behind closed doors and Johnson reached for an agreement to resolve the standoff.
Shortly before midnight GOP leaders announced a new proposal, a five-year extension, with revisions. The changes were designed to win over skeptics of the surveillance program who have demanded greater oversight to protect Americans’ privacy.
Among the changes are new provisions to ensure that only FBI attorneys can authorize queries on U.S. persons, and to require the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to review such cases, said Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., during the debate.
But the final product, a 14-page amendment, did not go far enough for some holdouts in either party.
With Johnson controlling a slim majority, he has little room for dissent. As the Republicans fell short on both efforts before the short extension, a handful of Democrats stepped in to try to help them advance the longer extensions, but most Democrats were opposed.
“We just defeated Johnson’s efforts to sneak through a 5-year FISA authorization tonight,” said Democratic Rep, Ro Khanna of California. “Now, they will have to fight in daylight.”
The Dictatorship
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons resigns
Todd Lyons, the acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is resigning from the agency later this spring, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to MS NOW.
He will remain in his role until May 31. The circumstances surrounding his departure were not immediately clear, and officials have not publicly identified his replacement.
“Director Lyons has been a great leader of ICE and key player in helping the Trump administration remove murderers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, and gang members from American communities,” DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement.
“He jumpstarted an agency that had not been allowed to do its job for four years. Thanks to his leadership, American communities are safer.”
Lyons, a longtime immigration enforcement official who assumed the acting directorship in 2025, has overseen ICE during a period of expanded deportation operations under President Donald Trump. His tenure has coincided with a sharp increase in enforcement tactics under the administration, including the killings of Renee Good and Alex Prettiby immigration officers in Minnesota in January.
ICE has cycled through multiple acting leaders in recent years and has lacked a Senate-confirmed director. Lyons’ departure comes at a pivotal moment for the agency as it navigates ongoing legal challenges and political divisions tied to the administration’s hardline immigration crackdown agenda. In recent months, Lyons has faced growing scrutiny, including a court order requiring him to appear before a federal judge over concerns that the agency failed to comply with directives related to detainees’ rights.
Earlier Thursday, Lyons testified before a House Appropriations subcommitteewhere he faced questions from lawmakers over ICE’s budget, enforcement priorities and compliance with court orders.
During the hearing, Lyons defended the agency’s recent surge in operations, arguing that increased resources were necessary to carry out its mission, while acknowledging ongoing legal challenges and scrutiny surrounding detainee treatment and due process protections.
Before assuming the top post, Lyons previously held senior roles within ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division, where he helped oversee deportation efforts nationwide.
Following the announcement of his resignation, White House border czar Tom Homan said Lyons “served selflessly as a highly respected and effective” as the acting ICE chief.
“I commend him for a distinguished law enforcement career and the countless contributions he has made to protect our country and advance its interests,” Homan said in a statement.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller praised Lyons as a “phenomenal patriot and dedicated leader.”
Didi Martinez is a freelance field producer for MS NOW.
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
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?



