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
Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.
In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.
Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.
In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”
A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.
Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.
Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.
In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.
It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.
On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.
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 MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring
About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.
All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.
The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.
The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.
The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
The Times summarized the broader context nicely:
Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.
Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.
In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.
The article added:
Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.
Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.
This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).
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
Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.
* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”
* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.
* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.
* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.
* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.
* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.
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.”
-
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
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?





