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.
Katy Perry lambasted the Trump administration over the weekend for using her song “Firework” in one of its social media videos about U.S airstrikes on Iran.
The pop star said she was “deeply appalled and angry” over the use of her song in a White House TikTok video featuring bombs exploding set to Perry’s 2010 hit — specifically featuring her lyrics “boom, boom, boom.” A caption on the video, which has more than 6 million views, reads: “Iran has been warned.”
“I did not approve this, I was not asked, and I absolutely do not condone it. I wrote this song to be an anthem of hope, healing, and inner strength for people going through their darkest personal moments,” Perry wrote in an X post on Saturday. “To see a message of self-worth and upliftment weaponized to soundtrack destruction and violence is a complete violation of everything my song stands for. My music is for bringing people together, not celebrating warfare.”
White House aide Kaelan Dorr responded to Perry, saying“This you?” He posted Perry’s own military-themed music video of her song “Part of Me,” in which she’s dressed in combat uniform.
Perry, who is in a romantic relationship with former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is among many other prominent artists who have rebuked the Trump administration for using their music in videos on official accounts.
Kesha publicly admonished President Donald Trump’s administration in March after the official White House TikTok account used her song “Blow” in another video about military action. “Stop using my music, perverts,” she said on X.
The Filipino American pop star Olivia Rodrigo expressed outrage at the Trump administration after it used her song “All-American Bitch” last fall in a video threatening deportations. She responded to the Department of Homeland Security at the time, saying, “Don’t ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda.”
While the video is still visible, Rodrigo’s music has been removed.
And last December, Sabrina Carpenter condemned the administration for using her song “Juno” in a video about immigration arrests, which she called “evil and disgusting.”
“Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda,” the singer wrote at the time.
Ariana Grandealso posted on her Instagram story last September criticizing the administration over its immigration policyanti-LGBTQ+ messaging and alleged censorship. In response, White House Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai told her, “Save your tears,” a reference to one of her songs. Last month, after the White House used her song “Bye” in an anti-immigration video on TikTok, she commented“Please do not ever use my music in relation to this barbaric, inhumane, heinous nonsense.”
Trump has repeatedly lashed out at Taylor Swift. The White House poked fun at the mega star earlier this month when shemarried Kansas City Chiefs player Travis Kelce at Madison Square Garden. Its official X account posted photo-shopped images of the venue’s billboards blaring, “TRUMP IS YOUR PRESIDENT.” After she endorsed his opponent, Kamala Harris, in the 2024 election, Trump wrote, “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!”
Last year, Trump went after Bruce Springsteenfor insulting the president at a concert in Manchester, England, where the Boss called the administration “corrupt, incompetent and treasonous.” Trump called the Grammy-award winning artist “highly overrated,” writing in part, “Never liked him, never liked his music, or his Radical Left Politics and, importantly, he’s not a talented guy.”
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
Problematic presidential family members are an American tradition as old as the republic. Teddy Roosevelt’s daughter Alice was such a wild child that her father said“I can be President of the United States or I can control Alice Roosevelt. I cannot possibly do both.” Neil Bush, son of one president and brother of another, was a director of a savings and loan association whose implosion cost taxpayers a billion dollars. Jimmy Carter’s brother Billy, a colorful buffoon, was investigated by Congress for his relationship with the Libyan government.
But we have a new standard by which all future misbehavior among presidential offspring should be judged. When it comes to grasping for taxpayer money, shameless corruption and sheer moral repugnance, none who came before can hold a candle to Donald Trump Jr. He has cemented his position as perhaps the most distasteful and ethically compromised presidential relative in American history — and his father isn’t even halfway through his second term.
Before we proceed, it’s important to note that so far as we know, Don Jr. has not committed any crimes. But he doesn’t have to: When the rules have become so lax that the president can accumulate billions of dollars in a single year from crypto schemes, the largesse of foreign governments and almost too many penny-ante cash grabs to count, all that stops Don Jr. from enriching himself at public expense is shame or a sense of morality — and he is clearly possessed of neither.
We have a new standard by which all future misbehavior among presidential offspring should be judged.
In President Donald Trump’s first term, his strategy on using the presidency for the enrichment of himself and his family was to claim he was acting in accord with ethical guidelines — saying he was turning management of his companies over to his sons or that he wouldn’t pursue foreign real estate deals — while still finding ways to keep raking in cash from things like the properties special interests could book if they wanted to put money in his pocket.
But in his second term, Trump had a realization. When it came to pursuing his own business interests while president, “I found out that nobody cared,” he told The New York Times earlier this year. So now he’ll make money wherever he can — and there is no shortage of companies, billionaires and foreign governments eager to curry favor as they pursue their own interests.
Don Jr. wasn’t just going to sit by and watch Dad have all the fun. So he has undertaken his own frenzy of dealmaking, all of it seemingly based on the fact that he’s the president’s son.
Some of the enterprises are joint ventures with the whole family. There’s World Liberty Financial, a crypto company that has been the vehicle for some of the biggest players looking to give payoffs to the Trumps and get something in return. As an investigative report revealedthe United Arab Emirates’ national security adviser secretly invested half a billion dollars in the company. Not long after, the Trump administration lifted export controls on computer chips the UAE desperately wants to create its own artificial intelligence infrastructure (Commerce Department staff objected to the changebut the White House cites the UAE’s position as a U.S. ally.)
Then there are the initiatives Don Jr. is pursuing on his own. He is a partner in an investment firm1789 Capital, which invests in companies that just happen to benefit from government policy, like a rare-earth magnet manufacturer called Vulcan Elements. Not long after Don Jr.’s firm invested, the Defense Department granted the small firm a $620 million loan as part of a deal in which the government took an equity stake in the company.
An investigation by ProPublicaciting defense officials, revealed that in a highly unusual move, the loan was approved after the White House, specifically Trump’s loyal trade adviser Peter Navarro, pressured the Pentagon to approve the loan. “Of the dozens of companies the Pentagon was considering funding at the time, Vulcan’s was the only deal initiated by a top aide to the president,” the outlet reported. The value of Vulcan Elements has increased tenfold since Don Jr. made his investment.
While the Trump administration seeks huge increases in defense spending, Don Jr. and his brother Eric have found a way to get on the gravy train: Invest in small defense companies, then watch as huge government contracts magically materialize. The Washington Post, citing “databases and news releases as well as data from PitchBook, a venture capital research database,” reports that the companies financially backed by the Trump sons “have collectively generated at least $3.2 billion in direct government business since the sons invested and an additional $3.1 billion in future contract options. Some have gained coveted spots on shortlists of preapproved contractors that can bid exclusively on up to nearly $200 billion in future work.”
Don Jr. has always had the air of a man desperate to please his indifferent father.
Then there’s the convoluted story of the Kazakh tungsten mine. As The New York Times reported, the Trump sons have extensive financial ties to a company called Kaz Resources. Not only did the U.S. government approve $1.6 billion in financing for the company, but the president also personally intervened with the president of Kazakhstan to ensure that Kaz Resources would be given access to tungsten reserves in the country. (White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters the president knew “nothing” about his sons’ involvement with the Kazakh mining deal and that “They would absolutely do nothing that would put the president in a place of conflict of interest.”)
We’re not done yet. Don Jr. is a paid adviser to both Kalshi and Polymarket, the gambling sites (excuse me, “prediction markets”) that seek to turn every moment of human activity into an opportunity for betting and have become magnets for heretofore unimagined forms of insider fraud. No doubt the companies are happy to call on Don Jr.’s expertise and advice, as the federal government treats them with the lightest regulatory touch imaginable and takes their side against states seeking to regulate them.
To round out our survey, Don Jr. is friendly with the recently arrested Andrew Tate, the proud misogynist and manosphere influencer who has been charged in Great Britain with multiple counts of rape and sex trafficking. Multiple women told their harrowing stories of abuse at the hands of Tate and his brother to The New Yorker (the brothers deny all the charges).
After they connected on social media, Tate said in 2018he went to Trump Tower to meet the president’s son, and “We still inbox each other every couple of days.” A friendship with Tate, one of the most despicable human beings on the planet, ought to be enough in itself to win one prime seating at the Lake of Fire for all eternity.
Don Jr. has always had the air of a man desperate to please his indifferent father. This spring, the president couldn’t even be bothered to attend his son’s wedding. But if he keeps this up, he’ll be able to say, “See Dad, I’m just as greedy and corrupt as you!” It’s an achievement no presidential relative can match.
Paul Waldman is a journalist and author focused on politics and culture.
Maine Democrats on Saturday selected former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson to replace Graham Platner as the party’s U.S. Senate nominee. Jackson now has just three months to make his case that Mainers should pick him to represent them in Washington over five-term Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
The Democrats’ scramble echoes the 2024 presidential electionwhen Kamala Harris ran for president after President Joe Biden withdrew. In this case, Jackson is the one taking the reins toward the end of a tight high-stakes race after his predecessor imploded and dropped out. But considering the disastrous circumstances, the nomination of Jackson looks like a pretty decent outcome for Democrats. There’s reason for cautious optimism that he could prevail in his race, given his unique position as a progressive insider with something to offer voters looking for populist outsiders.
This may end up being the smoothest passing of the baton Democrats could have hoped for.
It all came together shockingly fast. Platner’s campaign collapsed after a sexual assault allegation, and Democrats had less than two weeks to figure out how to replace him on the ballot. And the outcome of the convention held on Saturday had, in fact, been determined by the quickly cobbled-together process leading up to it.
The week before the state convention, registered Democrats voted in county-level mini-conventions in which they selected delegates to send to the state convention. The process was rushed and ad hoc, and the participation in the state conventions was less than a tenth of the primarybut the results were clear: Jackson dominated, winning 478 of 500 delegates up for grabs. Saturday’s state convention was a mere formality.
This may end up being the smoothest passing of the baton Democrats could have hoped for. At the level of state politics, Jackson is understood to be a logical replacement for Platner: He campaigned with him before his scandals, and according to Slatehe had the support of about 75% of the volunteers who had rallied behind Platner.
Jackson, 58, is a known quantity in Maine, having worked for over two decades in state politics, including both in the state Senate and in the state House of Representatives. He has the trust of the state party establishment and has a good reputation among progressive groups in the state. The power of his reputation was evident during the rapid-fire nomination process, as Jackson was able to secure the rapid backing of unions in the state and quickly rack up delegates. “Troy’s been around,” Jason Shedlock, a labor leader in Maine, told CNN. “If you don’t know him, you know somebody who does. And if you don’t know somebody who does, the person standing next to them has been impacted by him.”
At the same time, Jackson has progressive credentials that mirror much of Platner’s policy platform and will help him claim populist status. Before he got into politics, Jackson was a fifth-generation logger and participated in high-profile labor activism. He has supported progressive policies, and his unsuccessful campaign for governor this year was backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Jackson’s policy platform for Senate includes demands for Medicare for All, taxing billionaires, abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and cutting off aid to Israel’s military to “end the genocide in Gaza.” He said he doesn’t support Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York to continue as leader of the Senate Democrats. (He said he prefers Sanders.) Maine Democrats who were excited by Platner’s platform and voted for him overwhelmingly in the primary have little reason to recoil from Jackson.
Jackson also exhibits shades of Platner in one other way: a history of reactionary views. Jackson started in Maine politics as a Republican and entered the Maine State House as an independent, before becoming a Democrat in 2004. He used to be a social conservative, voting against gay marriage and abortion rights. But he has expressed regret about those views, and for years he has supported gay marriage and robust abortion rights, and has since gained the strong backing of advocacy groups that support those rights. His campaign platform calls for a federal right to abortion. Depending on one’s perspective, Jackson’s political evolution could be an asset or a liability. At worst, he could be slammed as unreliable and a chameleon. At best, he will be seen as independent-minded and willing to learn from mistakes.
Jackson currently occupies a competitive position in the polls. A University of New Hampshire poll of likely general election voters in Maine conducted between July 15 and July 20 — that is, while Jackson was gaining momentum before the convention — found 49% of respondents said they would vote for him if the election were held today, while 46% said they would vote for Collins. Meanwhile, 2% said “another candidate” and 3% said they were undecided. And in a promising sign of momentum, even before he clinched the nomination, Jackson raised $1 million for his Senate bid. That’s a lot for a guy who barely raised more than that over the course of an entire campaign for governor, which lasted about a year.
We don’t know if Jackson will maintain such a competitive position against a longtime incumbent. He doesn’t have Platner’s charisma, and his weaknesses are about to be tested. But the buzz that Platner generated is lingering around this race, and Maine is considered a must-win if Democrats are to win back the Senate. Jackson has a decent combination of qualities going for him, as a politician with experience and trust across the state and with a vision that will not betray the many Mainers who were enthralled with Platner before his fall from grace.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.
- ‘Fighting for an affordable America’: Hakeem Jeffries unveils closing midterm pitch
- Vote on health emergency preparedness nominee delayed
- House adopts budget framework for $95B party-line package
- Katy Perry slams White House for using her ‘Firework’ song in Iran war video
- Nobody’s cashing in on the presidency quite like Donald Trump Jr.
- Maine Democrats made the right choice with Troy Jackson
- ‘Fighting for an affordable America’: Hakeem Jeffries unveils closing midterm pitch
- Health care bills are opaque. Congress is trying to change that, again.
- Senate adding Iran sanctions to Russia bill
- How Republicans plan to conquer Troy Jackson
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
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
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words