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
NEXT: MAGA VOWS TO SILENCE FOES

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is escalating threats to crack down on what he describes as the “radical left” following Charlie Kirk’s assassinationstirring fears that his administration is trying to harness outrage over the killing to suppress political opposition.
Without establishing any link to last week’s shooting, the Republican president and members of his administration have discussed classifying some groups as domestic terrorists, ordering racketeering investigations and revoking tax-exempt status for progressive nonprofits. The White House pointed to Indivisible, a progressive activist network, and the Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros, as potential subjects of scrutiny.
Although administration officials insist that their focus is preventing violence, critics see an extension of Trump’s campaign of retribution against his political enemies and an erosion of free speech rights. Any moves to weaken liberal groups could also shift the political landscape ahead of next year’s midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress and statehouses across the country.
“The radical left has done tremendous damage to the country,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday morning when leaving for a state visit to the United Kingdom. “But we’re fixing it.”
Trump has sometimes made similar threats without following through. But now there’s renewed interest fueled by anger over the killing of Kirk, a conservative activist who was a prominent supporter of Trump and friends with many of his advisers.
More than 100 nonprofit leaders, representing organizations including the Ford Foundation, the Omidyar Network and the MacArthur Foundation, released a joint letter saying “we reject attempts to exploit political violence to mischaracterize our good work or restrict our fundamental freedoms.”
“Attempts to silence speech, criminalize opposing viewpoints, and misrepresent and limit charitable giving undermine our democracy and harm all Americans,” they wrote.
White House blames ‘terrorist networks’
Authorities said they believe the suspect in Kirk’s assassination acted alone, and they charged him with murder on Tuesday.
However, administration officials have repeatedly made sweeping statements about the need for broader investigations and punishments related to Kirk’s death.
Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed “left-wing radicals” for the shooting and said “they will be held accountable.” Stephen Miller, a top policy adviser, said there was an “organized campaign that led to this assassination.”
Miller’s comments came during a conversation with Vice President JD Vance, who was guest-hosting Kirk’s talk show from his ceremonial office in the White House on Monday.
Miller said he was feeling “focused, righteous anger,” and “we are going to channel all of the anger” as they work to “uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks” by using “every resource we have.”
Vance blamed “crazies on the far left” for saying the White House would “go after constitutionally protected speech.” Instead, he said, “We’re going to go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence.”
Asked for examples, the White House pointed to demonstrations where police officers and federal agents have been injured, as well as the distribution of goggles and face masks during protests over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.
There was also a report that Indivisible offered to reimburse people who gathered at Tesla dealerships to oppose Elon Musk’s leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency. Sometimes cars were later vandalized.
Indivisible’s leadership has said “political violence is a cancer on democracy” and said that their own organization has “been threatened by right-wingers all year.”
Nonprofits brace for impact
Trump’s executive actions have rattled nonprofit groups with attempts to limit their work or freeze federal funding, but more aggressive proposals to revoke tax-exempt status never materialized.
Now the mood has darkened as nonprofits recruit lawyers and bolster the security of their offices and staff.
“It’s a heightened atmosphere in the wake of political violence, and organizations who fear they might be unjustly targeted in its wake are making sure that they are ready,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the government watchdog group Public Citizen.
Trump made retribution against political enemies a cornerstone of his comeback campaign, and he’s mobilized the federal government to reshape law firms, universities and other traditionally independent institutions. He also ordered an investigation into ActBluean online liberal fundraising platform.
Some nonprofits expect the administration to focus on prominent funders like Soros, a liberal billionaire who has been a conservative target for years, to send a chill through the donor community.
Trump recently said Soros should face a racketeering investigation, though he didn’t make any specific allegations. The Open Society Foundations condemned violence and Kirk’s assassination in a statement and said “it is disgraceful to use this tragedy for political ends to dangerously divide Americans and attack the First Amendment.”
Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, wrote on social media that “the murder of Charlie Kirk could have united Americans to confront political violence” but “Trump and his anti-democratic radicals look to be readying a campaign to destroy dissent.”
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said “it is disingenuous and false for Democrats to say administration actions are about political speech.” She said the goal is to “target those committing criminal acts and hold them accountable.”
Republicans back Trump’s calls for investigations
Trump’s concerns about political violence are noticeably partisan. He described people who rioted at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as “hostages” and “patriots,” and he pardoned 1,500 of them on his first day back in the Oval Office. He also mocked House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi after an attack on her husband.
When Trump condemned Kirk’s killing in a video message last week, he mentioned several examples of “radical left political violence” but ignored attacks on Democrats.
Asked on Monday about the killing of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman over the summer, Trump said “I’m not familiar” with the case.
“Trump shrugs at right-wing political violence,” said Ezra Levin, the co-executive director of Indivisible, in a newsletter.
Some conservative commentators have cheered on a potential crackdown. Laura Loomer, a conspiracy theorist with a long record of bigoted comments, said “let’s shut the left down.” She also said that she wants Trump “to be the ‘dictator’ the left thinks he is.”
Katie Miller, the wife of Stephen Miller and a former administration spokeswoman, asked Bondi whether there would be “more law enforcement going after these groups” and “putting cuffs on people.”
“We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech,” Bondi said. “And that’s across the aisle.”
Her comments sparked a backlash from across the political spectrum, since even hate speech is generally considered to be protected under the First Amendment. Bondi was more circumspect on social media on Tuesday morning, saying they would focus on “hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence.”
Trump is getting more support from Republicans in Congress. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and others proposed legislation that would enable the Justice Department to use racketeering laws, originally envisioned to combat organized crime, to prosecute violent protesters and the groups that support them.
Rep. Chip Roy of Texas wants the House to create a special committee to investigate the nonprofit groups, saying “we must follow the money to identify the perpetrators of the coordinated anti-American assaults being carried out against us.”
___
Associated Press writer Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.
The Dictatorship
Japan’s exports to the US continue to fall, hit by Trump’s tariffs

TOKYO (AP) — Japan’s exports to the United States plummeted 13.8% in August compared to the same month the previous year, marking the fifth straight month of declines, as auto exports were hit by President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
The Finance Ministry data released Wednesday showed the rate of the drop in exports to the U.S. compared to the previous year worsened from a 10.1% slip in July.
U.S. tariffs on Japanese automobiles and auto parts decreased from 27.5%, the amount Trump initially levied, to 15% this week, but that’s still higher than the original 2.5%.
Wednesday’s data reflect the month of August, when the tariffs were higher. Japan’s overall exports were little changed, slipping 0.1%, as exports grew to Europe and the Middle East.
The provisional data for August showed Japan’s imports from the world fell 5.2% from a year ago. Imports from China grew 2.1%, while exports to China fell 0.5%. Imports from the U.S. grew 11.6%.
Exports to the world grew in food, gaining 18%, as well as in ships, growing by nearly 25%. Imports grew in computers, adding nearly 35% on-year, while aircraft rose 21%.
___
Yuri Kageyama is on Threads: https://www.threads.com/@yurikageyama
The Dictatorship
The Fed cuts interest rates by quarter-point after Trump’s pressure campaign


The Federal Reserve on Wednesday cut interest rates for the first time this yearwith policymakers opting for an expected quarter-point cut to the Fed’s benchmark rate.
The announcement comes as President Donald Trump has been pushing for rate cuts while attempting to assert more control over the historically independent central bank. He has sought to fire Biden appointee Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, a move that an appeals court temporarily blocked Monday night but could ultimately be resolved soon at the Supreme Court. The Trump administration had argued for kicking her off the board ahead of the Federal Open Market Committee’s two-day meeting that started Tuesday, at which rates and other important matters were discussed.
The Republican-led Senate just this week confirmed a new board governor appointed by Trump, Stephen Miran, who has said he would not resign from his economic adviser position in the Trump White House. Miran replaced Biden appointee Adriana Kugler, who abruptly resigned last month before her term’s expiration in January.
Another”https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20250917a.htm” target=”_blank”>disagreed with Wednesday’s actionas he preferred a larger cut.
The New York Times previously reported that the projected quarter-point rate cut “won’t have a significant effect on consumers’ financial lives, but it may provide a tiny bit of relief for people carrying credit card debt, while savers may see slightly less generous yields.”
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined BLN, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
-
Uncategorized10 months ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show10 months ago
DOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics7 months ago
Former ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Politics10 months ago
What 7 political experts will be watching at Tuesday’s debate
-
The Dictatorship7 months ago
Pete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics10 months ago
How Republicans could foil Harris’ Supreme Court plans if she’s elected
-
The Dictatorship7 months ago
Luigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Economy10 months ago
Fed moves to protect weakening job market with bold rate cut