update - Trump purges top navy brass
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
President Donald Trump's administration is having a difficult time defending the legality of its policies — even to judges Trump himself put on the bench.
Politico reported Monday that U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who Trump appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia during the first year of his first term, wasn't buying the administration's argument in favor of withholding congressionally appropriated funds for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Politico correspondents Katherine Tully-McManus and Kyle Cheney called Friedrich's Monday ruling "one of the most significant benchmarks in the legal response to the Trump administration’s effort to test the president’s power to withhold congressionally approved funds."
White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought claimed that the administration's refusal to disburse the $315 million appropriation for NED was legally justified by not only saying the administration had the right to hold onto money that wasn't lined up with the president's priorities, but that it was also in the best interest of NED.
READ MORE: 'Tangled mess': Nicolle Wallace exposes Trump's mounting 'contradictions' on Epstein
"The defendants’ official justification for that withholding — preserving the Endowment’s funding stability for the coming year — is not plausible," Friedrich wrote in her ruling, while also slamming "repeated maneuvers to impede the Endowment’s flow of funds."
NED — which focuses on promoting democratic ideals overseas – has typically had access to its full amount of funding since it was established in 1982 under then-President Ronald Reagan's administration. However, after Trump took office in January, NED became a casualty of Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which rampaged through multiple federal agencies, fired thousands of workers and axed billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts.
Previously, NED had pursued litigation to gain access to its full congressional appropriation, though its efforts were somewhat curtailed after the Trump administration relented and released most of its money. However, NED's legal efforts continued after the administration continued to justify freezing the disbursement of millions of dollars designated as "no-year" funds, meaning there was no deadline attached to when they had to be spent.
Congress banned presidents from singlehandedly refusing to disburse money passed in appropriations bills with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and Politico reported that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the administration had violated the act on five different occasions since his second term began. Vought complained in a May social media post that Trump critics were "going to call everything an impoundment because they want to grind our work to manage taxpayer dollars effectively to a halt."
Click here to read Politico's full report in its entirety.
'Not plausible': Trump-appointed judge hands him major loss in court
Politico reported Monday that U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who Trump appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia during the first year of his first term, wasn't buying the administration's argument in favor of withholding congressionally appropriated funds for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Politico correspondents Katherine Tully-McManus and Kyle Cheney called Friedrich's Monday ruling "one of the most significant benchmarks in the legal response to the Trump administration’s effort to test the president’s power to withhold congressionally approved funds."
White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought claimed that the administration's refusal to disburse the $315 million appropriation for NED was legally justified by not only saying the administration had the right to hold onto money that wasn't lined up with the president's priorities, but that it was also in the best interest of NED.
READ MORE: 'Tangled mess': Nicolle Wallace exposes Trump's mounting 'contradictions' on Epstein
"The defendants’ official justification for that withholding — preserving the Endowment’s funding stability for the coming year — is not plausible," Friedrich wrote in her ruling, while also slamming "repeated maneuvers to impede the Endowment’s flow of funds."
NED — which focuses on promoting democratic ideals overseas – has typically had access to its full amount of funding since it was established in 1982 under then-President Ronald Reagan's administration. However, after Trump took office in January, NED became a casualty of Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which rampaged through multiple federal agencies, fired thousands of workers and axed billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts.
Previously, NED had pursued litigation to gain access to its full congressional appropriation, though its efforts were somewhat curtailed after the Trump administration relented and released most of its money. However, NED's legal efforts continued after the administration continued to justify freezing the disbursement of millions of dollars designated as "no-year" funds, meaning there was no deadline attached to when they had to be spent.
Congress banned presidents from singlehandedly refusing to disburse money passed in appropriations bills with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and Politico reported that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the administration had violated the act on five different occasions since his second term began. Vought complained in a May social media post that Trump critics were "going to call everything an impoundment because they want to grind our work to manage taxpayer dollars effectively to a halt."
Click here to read Politico's full report in its entirety.
'Not plausible': Trump-appointed judge hands him major loss in court
Trump-backed judge rules administration’s withholding of funds illegal
The lawsuit by the National Endowment for Democracy is just one among dozens against the administration for frozen or withheld money previously approved by Congress.
A federal judge ruled Monday that the administration appears to be illegally withholding funds previously approved by Congress for the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit that supports democratic institutions and individual liberties across the globe.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich said the Trump administration has for months ”obstructed” tens of millions of dollars in funds intended for the group, forcing deep furloughs and defaults on grants — despite explicit language in federal law barring anyone but Congress from conditioning the disbursement of this funding.
The ruling by Friedrich, a Trump appointee, is one of the most significant benchmarks in the legal response to the Trump administration’s effort to test the president’s power to withhold congressionally approved funds.
Trump and his aides have made clear he believes he has the power to “impound” — or decline to spend — some congressionally required funding if he feels it does not align with his priorities. But that view conflicts with a 51-year-old law known as the Impoundment Control Act, which bars presidents from withholding federal dollars without congressional approval.
Friedrich’s ruling also comes at a tense moment in the standoff between the White House and Capitol Hill. There, many members of Trump’s own party are increasingly nervous about the possibility that budget chief Russ Vought will soon ask lawmakers to codify a second package of funding cuts after insisting on a vote last month to nix $9 billion for public broadcasting and foreign aid.
Meanwhile, Vought has openly floated the prospect of submitting a “pocket rescission” request, which is when the administration sends Congress a clawback request less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 — and regardless of whether Congress decides to act, the White House would treat the funding as expired beginning Oct. 1.
The National Endowment for Democracy, founded in 1982 to promote democracy abroad, received a $315 million appropriation for the current fiscal year, and every year since its founding had received access to the full amount of its funding as soon as it was approved by Congress. But that changed in January, amid a blitz by the new Trump administration — backed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency — to terminate federal programs and contracts en masse.
The Endowment sued the Trump administration in March as the organization was unable to access congressionally appropriated funds. Shortly after filing the suit, the Trump administration released a large portion of the withheld dollars, taking the sting out of the organization’s legal fight. But in recent weeks, the group said the administration had again started to slow-walk the disbursement of money, including some funds designated as “no year” funds — meaning they are available to be used without a deadline until they are expended.
“The defendants’ official justification for that withholding — preserving the Endowment’s funding stability for the coming year — is not plausible,” Friedrich wrote, finding that the administration threw up arbitrary roadblocks and hurdles.
Friedrich also emphasized that while there may be wiggle room for the administration to disburse funding on a slower schedule than the National Endowment for Democracy would prefer, its actions to date were indefensible.
In her ruling, the judge cited Vought’s own stance in support of the White House’s fiscal 2026 budget request to Congress, wherein he urged the lawmakers to defund the organization for political reasons in the next fiscal year “because of its alleged support of media organizations critical of the President and his allies.”
The National Endowment for Democracy’s lawsuit is just one in a deluge of legal challenges the administration is facing that allege that the administration is illegally withholding funds approved by Congress and signed into law. The cases across the country are challenging the freeze, cancellation and other roadblocks preventing agencies from accessing billions of dollars to which they ought to be entitled under the law.
In this case, Freidrich cited the administration’s “repeated maneuvers to impede the Endowment’s flow of funds.”
This latest decision follows another over the weekend by a three-judge panel that will require the Office of Management and Budget to revive a once-public database, which the administration took down earlier this year, showing how the OMB is advising agencies to spend government money.
The federal government’s top watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, has also issued five opinions in recent weeks finding that the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding federal funds. The administration has repeatedly sought to undercut these determinations by publicly disparaging GAO and recommending to Congress that the office’s budget be slashed.
“They are going to call everything an impoundment because they want to grind our work to manage taxpayer dollars effectively to a halt,” Vought wrote on social media back in May.
The lawsuit by the National Endowment for Democracy is just one among dozens against the administration for frozen or withheld money previously approved by Congress.
A federal judge ruled Monday that the administration appears to be illegally withholding funds previously approved by Congress for the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit that supports democratic institutions and individual liberties across the globe.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich said the Trump administration has for months ”obstructed” tens of millions of dollars in funds intended for the group, forcing deep furloughs and defaults on grants — despite explicit language in federal law barring anyone but Congress from conditioning the disbursement of this funding.
The ruling by Friedrich, a Trump appointee, is one of the most significant benchmarks in the legal response to the Trump administration’s effort to test the president’s power to withhold congressionally approved funds.
Trump and his aides have made clear he believes he has the power to “impound” — or decline to spend — some congressionally required funding if he feels it does not align with his priorities. But that view conflicts with a 51-year-old law known as the Impoundment Control Act, which bars presidents from withholding federal dollars without congressional approval.
Friedrich’s ruling also comes at a tense moment in the standoff between the White House and Capitol Hill. There, many members of Trump’s own party are increasingly nervous about the possibility that budget chief Russ Vought will soon ask lawmakers to codify a second package of funding cuts after insisting on a vote last month to nix $9 billion for public broadcasting and foreign aid.
Meanwhile, Vought has openly floated the prospect of submitting a “pocket rescission” request, which is when the administration sends Congress a clawback request less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 — and regardless of whether Congress decides to act, the White House would treat the funding as expired beginning Oct. 1.
The National Endowment for Democracy, founded in 1982 to promote democracy abroad, received a $315 million appropriation for the current fiscal year, and every year since its founding had received access to the full amount of its funding as soon as it was approved by Congress. But that changed in January, amid a blitz by the new Trump administration — backed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency — to terminate federal programs and contracts en masse.
The Endowment sued the Trump administration in March as the organization was unable to access congressionally appropriated funds. Shortly after filing the suit, the Trump administration released a large portion of the withheld dollars, taking the sting out of the organization’s legal fight. But in recent weeks, the group said the administration had again started to slow-walk the disbursement of money, including some funds designated as “no year” funds — meaning they are available to be used without a deadline until they are expended.
“The defendants’ official justification for that withholding — preserving the Endowment’s funding stability for the coming year — is not plausible,” Friedrich wrote, finding that the administration threw up arbitrary roadblocks and hurdles.
Friedrich also emphasized that while there may be wiggle room for the administration to disburse funding on a slower schedule than the National Endowment for Democracy would prefer, its actions to date were indefensible.
In her ruling, the judge cited Vought’s own stance in support of the White House’s fiscal 2026 budget request to Congress, wherein he urged the lawmakers to defund the organization for political reasons in the next fiscal year “because of its alleged support of media organizations critical of the President and his allies.”
The National Endowment for Democracy’s lawsuit is just one in a deluge of legal challenges the administration is facing that allege that the administration is illegally withholding funds approved by Congress and signed into law. The cases across the country are challenging the freeze, cancellation and other roadblocks preventing agencies from accessing billions of dollars to which they ought to be entitled under the law.
In this case, Freidrich cited the administration’s “repeated maneuvers to impede the Endowment’s flow of funds.”
This latest decision follows another over the weekend by a three-judge panel that will require the Office of Management and Budget to revive a once-public database, which the administration took down earlier this year, showing how the OMB is advising agencies to spend government money.
The federal government’s top watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, has also issued five opinions in recent weeks finding that the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding federal funds. The administration has repeatedly sought to undercut these determinations by publicly disparaging GAO and recommending to Congress that the office’s budget be slashed.
“They are going to call everything an impoundment because they want to grind our work to manage taxpayer dollars effectively to a halt,” Vought wrote on social media back in May.
Convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell has reportedly been cleared to leave prison on work release.
Podcast host Allison Gill obtained information about Maxwell's security score, sex offender waiver, and other details after the former partner of Jeffrey Epstein was moved to a minimum-security prison in Texas.
According to journalist Adam Klasfeld, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) raised questions about Maxwell's new prison accommodations in a letter to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The senator demanded to know if Maxwell received special treatment after meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, President Donald Trump's former personal attorney.
Documents viewed by Gill indicated that Maxwell was given a 7-point base security score — the highest possible because she is a sex offender and considered a danger to the community.
"Despite her score of 27 resulting in a MINIMUM security level, BOP policy does not allow people with a sex offender PSF (Public Safety Factor) to serve their sentences in minimum security facilities. Someone has to waive the PSF to make that move," Gill noted.
The documents also showed that Maxwell's custody level was set to "OUT," allowing her to leave the prison to work.
Gill explained that sex offender Epstein, Maxwell's associate, enjoyed the same ability to work outside prison after a "sweetheart deal" penned by attorney Alan Dershowitz and approved by Alex Acosta, who served under former President George W. Bush and Trump.
Podcast host Allison Gill obtained information about Maxwell's security score, sex offender waiver, and other details after the former partner of Jeffrey Epstein was moved to a minimum-security prison in Texas.
According to journalist Adam Klasfeld, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) raised questions about Maxwell's new prison accommodations in a letter to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The senator demanded to know if Maxwell received special treatment after meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, President Donald Trump's former personal attorney.
Documents viewed by Gill indicated that Maxwell was given a 7-point base security score — the highest possible because she is a sex offender and considered a danger to the community.
"Despite her score of 27 resulting in a MINIMUM security level, BOP policy does not allow people with a sex offender PSF (Public Safety Factor) to serve their sentences in minimum security facilities. Someone has to waive the PSF to make that move," Gill noted.
The documents also showed that Maxwell's custody level was set to "OUT," allowing her to leave the prison to work.
Gill explained that sex offender Epstein, Maxwell's associate, enjoyed the same ability to work outside prison after a "sweetheart deal" penned by attorney Alan Dershowitz and approved by Alex Acosta, who served under former President George W. Bush and Trump.
But only Nancy Pelosi -or now Mike Johnson, aka Speaker of the House, can call out the National guard.
Donald Trump and his minions themselves told us this again and again about the J6 attack.
People on this site repeated that message - why didn't Pelosi call out the National Guard? Trump had no ability to...
So, as Don calls out the Guard for a city not facing a crisis, they can take solace that they once again got conned by Don the Con.
But they likely won't know. There is a remarkable ability to just wipe clean the memory banks.
A divided appeals court handed President Donald Trump's administration a legal victory on Tuesday, finding that the U.S. DOGE Service can access sensitive federal data despite serious privacy concerns.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 2-1 that a group that included labor unions and individuals who receive government benefits failed to prove they could succeed in their legal challenge, The Washington Post reported.
The group had sought to prevent DOGE from accessing personal information held by the Treasury Department, Office of Personnel Management and Education Department. They argued such access would run afoul of federal privacy laws.
But the appeals court rejected their argument, saying they "struggled to show" they suffered harm. Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump nominee, noted in the ruling that federal privacy laws do "not prohibit sharing information with those whose jobs give them good reason to access it."
Furthermore, the judge said it stands to reason that DOGE affiliates charged with "modernizing an agency’s software and IT systems" would need "administrator-level access to those systems, including any internal databases.”
Appeals court splits in major ruling over controversial DOGE access
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 2-1 that a group that included labor unions and individuals who receive government benefits failed to prove they could succeed in their legal challenge, The Washington Post reported.
The group had sought to prevent DOGE from accessing personal information held by the Treasury Department, Office of Personnel Management and Education Department. They argued such access would run afoul of federal privacy laws.
But the appeals court rejected their argument, saying they "struggled to show" they suffered harm. Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump nominee, noted in the ruling that federal privacy laws do "not prohibit sharing information with those whose jobs give them good reason to access it."
Furthermore, the judge said it stands to reason that DOGE affiliates charged with "modernizing an agency’s software and IT systems" would need "administrator-level access to those systems, including any internal databases.”
Appeals court splits in major ruling over controversial DOGE access
Isn't that the same deal Epatein got, his first time around? Some folks get away with things that the average person would not. I wonder why that is.
So the current US administration seems pro fraud and pro pedophilia.
Or at least believes it was being too rough on pedophiles and fraudsters.
Definitely, but now that Maxwell is to be released it looks like they are ready to put the target on Clinton.
Will rich declare that it was Clinton all along now?
CNN has a pretty good timeline up right now. MAGA is going to have to get fancy to catch up and do the Clinton version.
