update - USSC to hear birthright citizenship case

[mandrill]

'Throwing Hegseth under the bus?' Trump statement on 'second strike' raises eyebrows


President Donald Trump seemingly distanced himself from the latest controversy surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The self-styled secretary of war reportedly ordered a second missile strike on two alleged smugglers who survived an attack on a boat administration officials say was carrying drugs from Venezuela to the U.S., and many military and legal experts say Hegseth's "no quarter" order violated international and U.S. laws.



"I don’t know that that happened and Pete said he did not want them, even know what people were talking about, so we'll look in –we'll look into it," Trump told reporters. "But no, I wouldn’t have wanted a second strike. The first strike was very lethal, it was fine, and if there were two people around, but Pete said that didn't happen. I have great confidence."

Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, joined with Democratic lawmakers in condemning Hegseth's alleged "kill everyone" follow-on order as illegal, and social media users highlighted Trump's comments as a significant break from his frequently embattled Pentagon chief.

"Pete Hegseth, you in danger, girl," warned X user Keith Edwards.

"Trump beginning the process of throwing Hegseth under the bus," noted former Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus.

"Translation: Pete may well go down for this. But I’m not going with him," agreed civil rights lawyer Sherilynn Ifill.

"President Trump says he would not have wanted the second strike," said Just Security's Ryan Goodman. "POTUS's only defense of Hegseth is claim that Hegseth supposedly said he didn't order it."

"Unless Trump gave the operational order for the second strike he can underbus Hegseth and still do whatever war he’s doing, the principle is not 'we’re not at war' it’s 'you can’t do this in war,'" argued post malone ergo propter malone.

"Interesting. So even Trump is saying a second strike would be wrong," opined Marine veteran Stan R. Mitchell. "Hegseth better hope the facts are on his side here."

"This is a major development and Hegseth just got hung out to dry," posted widely followed Blueskey user Chele Lea. "Trump said he didn’t want nor order the second strike on that Venezuelan boat. That’s HUGE. That’s Trump saying Hegseth acted alone. Trump always protects Trump his entire cabinet just got a wake-up call. Smart of Trump’s handlers."

 

[mandrill]

Trump decision could cost residents thousands in MAGA stronghold


President Donald Trump made a decision that's hurting residents in a stronghold of support that helped propel him to re-election.

The president denied disaster aid Oct. 22 to two electric utilities in rural northern Michigan – where his support has historically run strong since entering politics – that would shift billions of dollars in costs from federal taxpayers to working-class customers who now potentially face thousands of dollars in rate hikes to pay for repairs to the power grid following a three-day ice storm in March, reported Politico.



“It could be tens of millions of dollars left on the backs of the members,” said Allan Berg, the CEO of Presque Isle Electric & Gas, known as PIE&G, in northeastern Michigan.

Great Lakes Energy, in northwestern Michigan, warned on its website that “all storm-related costs not reimbursed by state or federal disaster aid will be paid for by the cooperative’s entire membership.”


Politico's E&E News obtained documents showing the Trump administration documented $90 million in damage to utility infrastructure, which is about five times the federal threshold to qualify for disaster aid, but the Federal Emergency Management Agency informed Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer that assistance was "not warranted."

That decision “could make the co-op actually go broke if something isn’t done to make them whole again,” said Pete Rose, a retired PIE&G foreman.

The utilities are nonprofit electric cooperatives serving rural areas and owned by customers, and Whitmer notified Trump in August that customers faced at least $4,500 per household in surcharges and rate increases without federal aid.

Trump has denied at least nine gubernatorial disaster requests since April despite FEMA documenting damage that met the federal threshold for aid, and he justified his decision in Michigan using fine print in a way that had never been done before.

“We can’t find a similar disaster where Category F is denied,” said Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI), who represents the area and has asked Trump to reconsider. “This is something nobody asked for. Our members did not want this ice storm. FEMA is a federal program designed to ensure when large natural disasters occur, they can come and make the playing field level.”

The Republican-led state House overwhelmingly approved $100 million in recovery funds in March, but the Democratic-controlled state Senate still has not taken action on the package, showing how disaster response if responsibility was shifted from the federal government to states.

“You look at northern Michigan, it’s a Republican area,” said state Rep. Parker Fairbairn, a Republican who sponsored the bill. “If this would have happened in Detroit or Grand Rapids, I think they would have seen funding from the state already in big numbers.”

 

[mandrill]

Trump border czar wages war with Catholic bishops


President Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan escalated tensions with U.S. Catholic leaders, sharply criticizing a new message from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) that condemned the administration’s “indiscriminate mass deportation.”

Knewz.com has learned that the bishops’ statement, approved by more than 95% of members at their fall assembly in Baltimore, warned that federal immigration tactics were fostering fear, profiling and the “vilification of immigrants.”

Catholic bishops rebuke deportation policies

In a recently released video statement, the bishops said, “We are disturbed when we see among our people a climate of fear and anxiety around questions of profiling and immigration enforcement.”

They added they are “saddened by the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants,” emphasizing that Christian teaching requires compassion for migrants.

Their message, delivered after guidance from Pope Leo XIV urging candor, opposed the “indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”

Homan rejects criticism and defends enforcement

Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Homan dismissed the bishops’ concerns as unrealistic.

He said their stance implies that “if you cross the border illegally, which is a crime, don’t worry about it — if you get ordered removed by a federal judge, that’s due process, don’t worry about it, because there shouldn’t be mass deportations.”

Homan argued that weakening enforcement would encourage migrants to risk their lives. He cited the Biden administration’s earlier policies, claiming “over 4,000 aliens died making that journey and 40 million Americans died from fentanyl.”

Border czar’s claims of legality and comparisons to Vatican security

Homan insisted the administration’s approach was lawful and humane.

He said the U.S. “has the right to secure our borders,” and compared penalties for entering the Vatican to those in the U.S., saying, “The penalties for entering their facilities are much worse than ours so by enforcing the law we’re saving lives.”

He credited Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with helping create “the most secure border in the history of this nation.”

Homan notes he is a ‘lifelong Catholic’

Homan noted he is a “lifelong Catholic” but urged the bishops to shift their focus inward.

“I think they need to spend time fixing the Catholic Church, from my point of view,” he said, signaling no retreat from the Trump administration’s immigration policies and no intention of moderating his criticism of religious leaders who oppose them.

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Appeals court disqualifies Alina Habba as top prosecutor in New Jersey


A federal appeals court has affirmed a court ruling to disqualify Donald Trump’s former personal attorney Alina Habba from serving as the top prosecutor in New Jersey, landing yet another major blow to the president’s loyalists overseeing critical law enforcement roles across the country.

Habba, whose appointment sparked a legal showdown between the Trump administration and the state’s federal judges, is “unlawfully serving” as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, the panel affirmed Monday.

After she briefly served as “counselor to the president” at the White House, Habba was sworn in as acting U.S. attorney in her home state.

In July, New Jersey’s federal trial judges named their own nominee to replace Habba at the end of her 120-day term.

But hours later, Attorney General Pam Bondi not only blocked the judges’ nominee but “removed” her from the office entirely, then publicly rebuked the judges and promoted Habba — preserving her role as the state’s top federal prosecutor.

The Department of Justice is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Monday’s ruling stems from the months-long legal challenge brought by New Jersey defendants challenging the legality of Habba’s tenure and the charges she brought against them.

They argued that Habba did not have the authority to bring charges after her 120-day term expired and must have a “constitutional right to be prosecuted only by a duly authorized United States Attorney.”

“The illegitimacy of Ms. Habba’s appointment undermines … fundamental due process rights,” attorneys wrote in court filings.

The appellate panel blocked Habba from serving in both the “acting” role and as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney under Bondi, “because only the first assistant in place at the time the vacancy arises automatically assumes the functions and duties of the office” under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, judges wrote.

And because Habba was nominated to serve full-time as the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, the law prevents her from assuming the role of Acting U.S. Attorney, according to the judges.

Bondi’s “delegation of all the powers of a U.S. Attorney to Habba” is also prohibited, they added.

Monday’s ruling marks the latest strike against the Trump administration as his Justice Department faces intense legal scrutiny over a series of maneuvers to keep the president’s allies in office by getting around legal limits on how long they can stay there.

Judges have reached similar decisions in cases challenging the appointments of Trump-backed U.S. attorneys in Los Angeles, Nevada and Virginia, where the president directed Bondi to launch two politically charged cases against his longtime foes James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Last week, a judge disqualified U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan in the eastern district of Virginia and dismissed the cases against Trump’s enemies, finding that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” amounted to “unlawful exercises of executive power.”



Habba, who was a personal attorney to Trump in a blockbuster fraud trial and a defamation lawsuit from E Jean Carroll, was appointed to serve as New Jersey’s top prosecutor earlier this year but faced legal challenges after serving beyond the expiration date of her temporary acting role (AP)
In her first few months in office, Habba pursued a series of politically loaded investigations targeting Democratic officials, including an investigation into Governor Phil Murphy and Attorney General Matthew Platkin and criminal charges against a sitting member of Congress.


Her office charged Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Rep. LaMonica McIver, both Democrats, following a protest outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in the state.

Habba ultimately dropped trespassing charges against the mayor, a decision that a judge later called an “embarrassing retraction.”

Baraka’s “hasty arrest”, followed by Habba’s dismissal of the charges two weeks later, “suggests a worrying misstep by your office,” Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa said during a hearing that month. The mayor later sued Habba for malicious prosecution.

McIver, meanwhile, has been accused of assaulting law enforcement, which she has strenuously denied.

Before Trump appointed her to serve as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, Habba’s term as one of his personal lawyers saw back-to-back losses in New York courtrooms that racked up nearly half a billion dollars in two blockbuster judgments against the president.

in New York in October 2023. He was ordered to pay $350 million to the state for more than a decade of business fraud. The president has appealed the financial penalty (POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Trump was ordered to pay E Jean Carroll more than $83 million after he was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming the former Elle magazine writer. One month later, Trump was ordered to pay more than $350 million to the state for more than a decade of business fraud — a judgment that has only grown with interest to more than $500 million.


The president has successfully appealed the financial penalties in his fraud case, for now, but he remains on the hook for millions of dollars after appeals courts sided with Carroll in judgments he is now asking the Supreme Court to turn over.

The Independent has requested comment from Habba’s office.

 

[mandrill]

Supreme Court Deals Major Blow to Trump Removal


The Supreme Court blocked President Donald Trump from immediately removing Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights, and kept her on the job while it reviews related cases.

The decision pauses a dispute over whether the Copyright Office belongs to the legislative branch and whether presidents can remove its officials.

The court said it will wait for rulings in linked cases involving the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve before making a final decision.


Separation of Powers
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said, “We are pleased that the Court deferred the government’s motion to stay our court order in a case that is critically important for rule of law, the separation of powers, and the independence of the Library of Congress.”

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said, “President Trump exercised his lawful authority as head of the executive branch to remove an officer exercising executive authority. We look forward to ultimate resolution of this issue by the Supreme Court.”

 

[mandrill]

Anger as Trump pardons another criminal with more than 10,000 victims


In yet another gift to corporate criminals, President Donald Trump has reportedly used his executive authority to commute the seven-year prison sentence of a former private equity executive convicted of defrauding more than 10,000 investors of around $1.6 billion.

David Gentile, the founder and former CEO of GPB Capital, was convicted of securities and wire fraud last year and sentenced to prison in May, but he ended up serving just days behind bars. The New York Times reported over the weekend that the White House “argued that prosecutors had falsely characterized the business as a Ponzi scheme.”

One victim said they lost their “whole life savings” to the scheme and are now living “check to check.” Another, who described themselves as “an elderly victim,” said they “lost a significant portion” of their retirement savings.

“This money was earmarked to help my two grandsons pay for college,” the person said. “They had tragically lost their father and needed some financial assistance. So this loss attached my entire family.”

In a statement following Gentile’s sentencing earlier this year, FBI Assistant Director in Charge Christopher Raia—who was appointed to the role by Trump’s loyalist FBI director, Kash Patel—said the private equity executive and his co-defendant, Jeffry Schneider, “wove a web of lies to steal more than one billion dollars from investors through empty promises of guaranteed profits and unlawfully rerouting funds to provide an illusion of success.”



“The defendants abused their high-ranking positions within their company to exploit the trust of their investors and directly manipulate payments to perpetuate this scheme,” said Raia. “May today’s sentencing deter anyone who seeks to greedily profit off their clients through deceitful practices.”

Critics said Trump’s commutation of Gentile’s sentence sends the opposite message: That the administration is soft on corporate crime and rich fraudsters despite posturing as fierce protectors of the rule of law and throwing the book at the vulnerable.

“Trump will deport an Afghan living in the US with Temporary Protected Status if he is accused of stealing $1,000,” said US Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). “But he’ll set a white dude free who was convicted of stealing $1.6 billion from American citizens to go commit more crime.”

After criticizing former President Joe Biden for commuting the sentences of death-row prisoners, Trump has wielded his pardon power to spare political allies—including January 6 rioters—and rich executives while his administration works to “delegitimize the very concept of white-collar crime.”

Since the start of Trump’s second term, his administration has halted or dropped more than 160 federal enforcement actions against corporations, according to the watchdog group Public Citizen. White-collar criminals reportedly view Trump as their “get-out-of-jail-free card.”

“The most shamelessly corrupt administration in history,” journalist Wajahat Ali wrote in response to the Gentile commutation.

 

[mandrill]

FBI's own dossier breaks down Kash Patel team as 'in over their heads'


An FBI dossier assessing the leadership of Kash Patel and his team has deemed them "in over their heads".

FBI Director Patel, along with deputy director Dan Bongino, appear to have had a negative effect on employee's with "an 80/20" skew to negativity through anecdotal reporting. The "pulse check" on the FBI's mood comes as the FBI dossier described Bongino as a "clown" and also detailed a tantrum from Patel, who refused to leave a plane until he was handed an FBI jacket.



Sources have described Patel as "in over his head" and lacking "the breadth of experience" necessary to be a successful FBI director, The Daily Beast reported.

Donald Trump has previously denied having any intent to fire Patel, but the dossier criticizing Patel and his team has painted a ridiculous picture inside of the FBI. The report was written by a group of active duty and retired agents and analysts, who collectively wrote Patel's leadership is "dismal".



The report further alleged the FBI had become a "rudderless ship" with him at the top, observing that Patel had not made "a positive impression". Both he and Bongino were told to "stop talking, stop posing, and just be professional."

Once incident recalled Patel refusing to exit a plane until he was given an FBI raid jacket. The report reads, "Patel apparently did not have his own FBI raid jacket with him and refused to step from the plane without wearing one."

Both men were accused of "spending too much time on social media and public relations" and for being "too often concerned with building their own personal résumés."

It was not just problems with Bongino and Patel as individuals, with the report noting there had been mission briefings that were "incomplete and confusing at best, chaotic at worst". It left some agents in what was described as "tactically unsafe positions."

Though Patel is yet to respond to the dossier, it appears Bongino referred to it in a post to X, saying that the dossier is a leak of "gossipy nonsense".

He wrote, "A LOT of people are very upset at the changes and reforms we've made at the FBI. They will do anything to revert to the old ways of doing things. So they leak gossipy nonsense to media outlets and 'journalists' with a clear agenda, and they ignore the historic results and the significant reforms we instituted."

 

[mandrill]

Leavitt confirms second strike that killed alleged drug boat survivors


The White House has confirmed that the admiral overseeing U.S. military operations against alleged drug-carrying boats had issued the order for a second strike that killed two survivors, an attack that has intensified legal scrutiny into the Trump administration’s lethal campaign.

Following new reporting about the September 2 strike and allegations that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth commanded military personnel to “kill everybody” on board the vessels, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Admiral Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley had issued the order to fire on the vessel in the Caribbean a second time.

At the time of the attack, Bradley led the Joint Special Operations Command, which operates under the U.S. Special Operations Command and typically is responsible for performing classified military operations. He was later promoted to lead the parent organization.

Asked to clarify whether Hegseth had ordered the second strike on the boat, Leavitt told reporters that Bradley — not Hegseth — gave the order and stressed that the veteran naval officer was “well within his authority and the law” when he did.

“He directed the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat from narco terrorists was eliminated,” she said.

Leavitt added that the strikes were “conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict.”

The strike on September 2, the first among more than a dozen attacks that have killed more than 80 people in recent months, “was conducted in self defense to protect Americans” and “vital United States interests,” she said.

When two survivors emerged from the wreckage, Bradley issued an order to comply with Hegseth’s alleged instructions to “kill everybody,” according to The Washington Post, citing officials with direct knowledge of the operation.

The two men were then “blown apart in the water,” according to the report.

News of Hegseth’s alleged command follows growing questions about Trump administration’s deadly campaign and allegations that the attacks amount to illegal extrajudicial killings, which law-of-war experts speaking to The Independent have labeled outright murders and war crimes.

According to the Pentagon’s own Law of War Manual, people who are “wounded, sick, or shipwrecked” on the high seas are supposed to be “respected and protected in all circumstances” by U.S. forces, even during hostilities.

The Defense Department’s manual specifically states that “making them the object of attack is strictly prohibited.”

But when pressed on how her claim that the strikes on the survivors were “in accordance with the law of armed conflict” when the Pentagon’s own guidance explicitly says otherwise, Leavitt declined to offer an explanation and instead repeated her early prepared statement.

One day earlier, Donald Trump told reporters that Hegseth told him “he did not order the death of those two men.”

“I wouldn't have wanted that — not a second strike,” the president told reporters Sunday. “The first strike was very lethal.”

Leavitt also defended Trump’s pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras who was convicted in U.S. court last year of leading a drug trafficking conspiracy that enriched cartels — allegations at the center of the president’s current military pressure campaign against Venezuela.


“The people of Honduras have highlighted to [Trump] how the former President Hernandez was set up,” Leavitt said.

She repeated claims from Hernández’s legal team that his case was “over-prosecution” and “lawfare” under Joe Biden’s administration.

“He’s of course within his constitutional authority to sign clemency for whoever he deems worthy of that,” she said.



Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has defended U.S. military actions against alleged drug-carrying boats as members of Congress investigate whether he ordered troops to leave no survivors behind (REUTERS)
Democratic and Republican members of both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee are pledging “vigorous oversight” of the Pentagon in the wake of the news as members of Congress join growing calls for investigations into alleged criminal acts.


Leavitt‘s confirmation of the second strike on the alleged drug trafficking boat marked an abrupt reversal of the administration's position from days earlier, when White House Communications Director Steven Cheung responded to the Post story by accusing the newspaper of having fabricated their report, writing on X that the Post had “literally just printed what some unnamed random person said and reported it as fact.”

The Pentagon initially declined to comment on Hegseth’s alleged command, though Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell later hit back in his own X post by claiming that the story’s “entire narrative was false.”

“These people just fabricate anonymously sourced stories out of whole cloth,” he added.

Hegseth later issued a lengthy statement on X defending the campaign without denying whether he ordered officials to “kill everybody” on the boats despite not posing any immediate threat to the United States.


“As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland,” he wrote Friday. “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict — and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”

Just days later, Trump himself confirmed what his top defense adviser had denied while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One.

 

[mandrill]

Trump’s move bad news for GOP as he elevates Democrat for 2028


President Donald Trump's violent threats aimed at several Democrats, and specifically Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), have now positioned the lawmaker for a potential presidential run in 2028, a commentator said Monday.

In an analysis published by Salon's Jason Kyle Howard on Monday, the writer described why Trump's move could be a "potential risk" for Republicans after the president had a vicious response to a Nov.18 video featuring Kelly, a retired Navy captain and combat pilot, and five other Democrats — all veterans and former intelligence personnel — who gave a direct message to veterans: "You can refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”



Trump took toTruth Social and called the Democratic lawmakers "traitors" who should be imprisoned or face the death penalty. Later, he denied that he made those threats.

And then on Nov. 24, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the Pentagon was investigating if Kelly had violated military law, saying the Arizona senator could be called back to active duty and could face “court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” The next day, an FBI probe was reportedly underway to investigate "the lawmakers’ conduct." The agency apparently wanted to schedule interviews with each of the six lawmakers in the video.



But the series of attacks has backfired on the Trump administration and Kelly has used the maneuvers to his advantage, making television appearances, sending out fundraising emails and speaking out against the president, Howard wrote. He "also seized the opportunity to go on the offense and talk about other issues."

"By virtue of the Pentagon investigation, as well as rumors of his presidential ambitions, Kelly has received the lion’s share of attention," Howard wrote. "That’s bad news for Republicans and constitutes a major error on the part of Trump, whose actions have had unintended consequences: He has elevated Kelly as a potential 2028 rival, if not for himself then for his MAGA successor, whether that ends up being Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Donald Trump Jr. — who’s in second place behind Vance according to a recent poll — or even Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who recently announced her retirement from Congress."

Trump might not have considered how his attacks on Kelly would pan out and how Americans would react.

"For all his achievements, Kelly is not a natural showman. A sober presence in interviews and on the stump, he has tended to fade into the background in the Senate," Howard explained. "But Kelly also has an unquantifiable quality that more voters, at least over the past couple of decades, have associated with Republican politicians: BDE. This understated confidence is something that Trump, with his hurricane of narcissism and swagger, has never possessed. It’s a trait that has been on full display in every interview Kelly has given since he became the target of the administration’s ire."

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Observers taken aback over White House's changing story on lethal strikes


The internet had a serious response to the new White House announcement on Monday, arguing that President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth relied on orders from a senior military leader to authorize the two strikes on an alleged drug boat after reports that survivors were targeted after the first strike.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Admiral Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley ordered the second strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean, just off the coast of Venezuela, and that it was "well within his authority to do so."


Social media users responded to the news and questioned the Trump administration over the new information.

"A straightforward progression from claiming 'this entire narrative' is 'fabricated' with 'NO FACTS' to admitting most of the report is accurate, shielding the top official involved, and saying that the strike was good, actually. Very dishonest people," Matthew Gertz, senior fellow at Media Matters for America, wrote on X.



"So the thing the White House and the Secretary of Defense both attacked as 'fake news' did in fact happen. They were lying, and nobody should be buying this new version of the story either without asking a bunch more questions," Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), wrote on X.



"Yesterday, Donald Trump said he would not have wanted a second strike. Today, the White House admitted the second strike did happen, but blamed Admiral Bradley. Either Trump has no control over his military, or Leavitt is trying to insulate Trump and Hegseth," journalist Aaron Parnas wrote on X.

"Either Admiral Bradley went rogue, or was following @SecWar's directiveDoesn't matter who ordered it. It was unlawful. Operating lawfully is what gives an armed force their credibility. It's what used to separate militaries in democracies from dictators. Not so much in America," a user named Michael, who identified as a Royal Canadian Navy veteran, wrote on X.

"Oh so there was a second strike? lol weren’t they saying there wasn’t one?" Commentator Keith Edwards wrote on X.

"So either the Commander in Chief and Secretary of Defense did not know about the second strike that Republicans have even called a war crime, or the White House is just placing all the blame on Admiral Bradley to deflect," podcast host Jessica Tarlov wrote on X.

"If he was 'well within his authority,' then release the unredacted video of the strike, the timeline of events, & the radio recordings of every order. Because based on the reporting we’ve seen, it appears @SecWar may have committed a war crime. The public deserves transparency," Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) wrote on X.

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Trump scrambling as White House runs out of lawyers to defend the MAGA agenda in court


the list of lawyers willing to jeopardize their reputations and their law licenses to pursue President Donald Trump’s lawfare against his perceived enemies is “growing blessedly shorter.”

“As it stands, the scramble to find lawyers who are both sufficiently loyal and able to make ridiculously political arguments hold up in court is failing,” said Brown.

Monday saw a federal appeals panel confirm that Alina Habba’s controversial appointment as the U.S. attorney for New Jersey wasn’t legitimate. This ruling came on the heels of a different federal judge’s determination that Trump appointee Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed to serve as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

“Both Habba and Halligan came to their roles after previously acting as personal attorneys to President Trump. That they were tapped at all showcases how weak the backbench of lawyers willing to defend the MAGA agenda in court really is,” said Brown. “And with their dismissals, it’s safe to say that Trump is running low on lawyers to fill in the massive gaps needed to skillfully defend his most controversial policies.”

Brown said the sheer number of lawsuits in which Trump has involved himself created a “fertile ground” for presidential appointments this term, including Trump’s loyalists Attorney General Pamela Bondi, her top deputy, Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon and Solicitor General John Sauer. But filling out the rest of the Justice Department’s ranks has proven much more difficult, especially with Bondi, Bove and Blanche having overseen the mass firing and forced transfer of many career attorneys who had worked on the federal cases against Trump or on issues that go against the MAGA ethos. A further torrent of resignations has added to the gutting of many of the DOJ’s offices have undergone,” said Brown.

Filling in the gaps from the thousands of departures with qualified MAGA-friendly lawyers is even more difficult. The Washington Post reported last month that a newly politicized hiring process has meant “attorneys in divisions that have seen significant departures are stretched thin, unable to keep up with incoming cases or complaints.”

Adding to troubles, said Brown, is the fact that the Trump administration pulled a record number of nominations due to a combination of GOP pushback and vetting issues. This leaves smaller stable of Senate-confirmed figures to appoint to acting roles.

“Look no further than Habba’s initial appointment to see what a struggle the Justice Department has had in finding qualified prosecutors,” said Brown.

Habba, who was was unable to win Senate confirmation as U.S. attorney, was instead moved back into the spot despite her interim appointment lapsing. But Brown says she is “pinch hitter” drafted after the original Eastern District of Virginia appointee refused to pursue Trump’s enemies without clear evidence of a crime. And her lack of experience prompted a judge to toss her charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Trump’s beholden Supreme Court could reverse lower court decisions finding Habba and Halligan’s appointments unlawful, but Brown said the fact that some who “might be more experienced than Halligan and Habba have yet to be tapped is telling.”

“Seeing Habba’s and Halligan’s doomed efforts to bend the law to Trump’s will has been a rare beacon of hope during an overall disconcerting year,” said Brown. “With their removal, the short-list of Trumpist attorneys to carry on their legacy grows blessedly shorter.”

Read the MS NOW report at this link.

 

[mandrill]

What the US Supreme Court has said about denaturalization


As the Trump administration signals a willingness to broaden the use of denaturalization—amid pledges to “terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions” and pursue “REVERSE MIGRATION”—longstanding Supreme Court precedent places sharp limits on when the government may revoke citizenship.

Those limits, set over the course of nearly a century, reflect a consistent judicial view that denaturalization is a narrow tool reserved for cases of proven fraud, not a mechanism for political punishment or broad immigration enforcement.

Newsweek contacted citizenship and denaturalization scholars and constitutional law experts for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Monday.

Why It Matters
With the Trump administration considering broader grounds for revoking citizenship—including proposals to strip it from people who “undermine domestic tranquility” or are deemed “noncompatible with Western civilization”—the Supreme Court’s long-established constraints on denaturalization draw a sharp line around what the government can actually do.

For nearly a century, the Court has held that citizenship may be revoked only in rare cases of proven fraud, warning repeatedly against turning denaturalization into a tool of political retaliation.

With millions of naturalized Americans now watching new enforcement moves and rhetoric aimed at immigrants, the legal limits the Court has set—and why it set them—have become central to understanding how far any administration can go.



U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, right, hands Sarah Waldner, of Mitchell, S.D., her citizenship certificate during a naturalization ceremony at Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Thursday, Oct. 2, 2025, in Keystone, S.D.

What To Know
Legal Limits on Denaturalization
The administration’s recent rhetoric includes proposals to strip citizenship from individuals who “undermine domestic tranquility,” as well as foreign-born Americans deemed “noncompatible with Western civilization.”

The administration’s push comes amid its broader effort to tighten immigration enforcement and reshape the system in ways that emphasize ideological alignment and national-security concerns, making denaturalization a tool it now views as politically and strategically useful.

Immigration attorney Mariam Masumi said such bases have no footing in law, noting that denaturalization “is extremely limited” and may be pursued only when citizenship was obtained “through fraud or by concealing a material fact.”

She warned that expanding denaturalization beyond those limits could conflict directly with the First Amendment.

How the Supreme Court Built Its Modern Doctrine
The Supreme Court’s modern denaturalization jurisprudence began during World War II and the early Cold War, when thousands of naturalized Americans were targeted on grounds ranging from political affiliation to perceived insufficient loyalty.

As documented in historical accounts, more than 22,000 people lost citizenship between 1907 and 1967 on such bases.

But beginning in the 1940s, the Supreme Court reined in these practices.

In Schneiderman v. United States (1943), which challenged an attempt to denaturalize a labor leader over Communist Party ties, the Court held that “the facts and the law should be construed as far as is reasonably possible in favor of the citizen.”

Newsweek
A lot happens in a day — catch up here.Our smart recap of the day's top news, delivered daily
Sign up
It further said the government “must sustain the heavy burden…to prove lack of attachment by ‘clear, unequivocal, and convincing’ evidence.”

This reasoning reflected the Court’s broader conclusion that citizenship, once granted, cannot be taken away lightly.

The Supreme Court gradually built a strict framework limiting the government’s ability to revoke citizenship when it emphasized in Baumgartner v. United States (1944) that “one should not be denaturalized on evidence that would not be sufficient to convict him of a minor offense” and that such cases “call for the closest scrutiny.”

Soon after, the Court underscored the value of citizenship in Knauer v. United States (1946), declaring that “citizenship is a priceless treasure…We will not permit it to be taken away without the clearest sort of justification.”

A little more than a decade later, the Court made clear in Trop v. Dulles (1958) that “citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior,” reinforcing the idea that citizenship cannot function as a tool of punishment.


That principle was cemented in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), where the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment “was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship,” that the government cannot forcibly strip citizenship from a naturalized American without the individual’s consent, except when it was “unlawfully procured.”

Most recently, the Court unanimously reaffirmed these protections in Maslenjak v. United States (2017), insisting that “the Government must establish that the defendant’s illegal act played some role in her acquisition of citizenship” and warning that it was “unconvinced that Congress meant to grant prosecutors nearly limitless leverage over naturalized citizens.”

The Constitution Annotated summarizes this principle: an individual has no right to retain citizenship “if, by false evidence or the like, an imposition has been practiced upon the court,” but citizenship may be revoked only when there is “strict compliance with all congressionally imposed prerequisites” and those requirements were violated. Otherwise, naturalization stands.


Recent Caseloads and the Court’s Continuing Constraints
In recent decades therefore, denaturalization has remained rare.

According to research conducted by The Brennan Center for Justice, the Justice Department filed an average of 11 cases per year between 1990 and 2017, rising modestly during the Obama and Trump administrations as technological tools enabled renewed fraud detection.

As Cassandra Burke Robertson and Irina D. Manta, from their academic article (Un) Civil Denaturalization (2019), explain: “Denaturalization is no longer so rare. Naturalized citizens’ sense of security has been fundamentally shaken by policy developments in the last five years. The number of denaturalization cases is growing, and if current trends continue, it will continue to increase dramatically. This growth began under the Obama administration, which used improved digital tools to identify potential cases of naturalization fraud from years and decades ago.”


Even so, the Supreme Court has continued to reject expansive theories.

In 2017, the Court ruled unanimously that the government must show a direct causal link between an unlawful act—such as a false statement—and the actual acquisition of citizenship; prosecutors may not merely “scour paperwork” to identify technical omissions.

Today, as the administration pauses asylum decisions for Afghan nationals and signals a broader reexamination of green cards and immigration benefits, the Supreme Court’s precedents remain clear: denaturalization is permissible only in narrowly defined circumstances, and political viewpoints, post-naturalization conduct, or broad character assessments are not among them.

Any attempt to use denaturalization as an instrument of policy rather than law is likely to face steep constitutional headwinds.

What People Are Saying
Cassandra Burke Robertson and Irina D. Manta, from the academic article (Un) Civil Denaturalization (2019) state: “The Trump administration…is taking denaturalization to new levels as part of its overall immigration crackdown.”

The Brennan Center for Justice, warning that renewed calls for denaturalization “recall a dark history,” and cautioning that citizenship revocation “as a political weapon” would run up against the Court’s longstanding doctrine.


What Happens Next
The administration’s push to widen denaturalization is likely to trigger rapid legal challenges, with federal courts relying on long-established Supreme Court precedent that restricts revoking citizenship to cases of proven fraud.

While the government can increase file reviews and investigations, any attempt to strip citizenship based on ideology or broad security claims will face significant judicial resistance, creating a gap between political rhetoric and legal reality.

As challenges unfold, naturalized Americans may experience heightened scrutiny and uncertainty, and the issue could ultimately return to the Supreme Court if lower courts split on how to interpret the limits.

 

[mandrill]

Trump warns troops not to be fooled by Dems telling them to follow Constitution


President Donald Trump repeated his call for U.S. troops to obey him after six Democrats released a video urging U.S. military and intelligence personnel to defy illegal orders.

The six lawmakers, all with military or intelligence backgrounds, circulated a video online last month reminding service members that under U.S. law, they must disobey illegal orders and uphold the Constitution. The video sparked outrage on the right, who accused the lawmakers of urging troops to ignore orders in general from the president.



The group of lawmakers included Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst, and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a former Navy pilot and astronaut. It also included Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), an Army veteran; Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), a Navy veteran; and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), an Air Force veteran.

Trump initially responded forcefully, denouncing the video, calling the lawmakers “traitors,” and labeling their message “seditious.” He suggested their conduct could be “punishable by death.”



On Monday night, Trump doubled down.

"Mark Kelly and the group of Unpatriotic Politicians were WRONG to do what they did, and they know it! I hope the people looking at them are not duped into thinking that it’s OK to openly and freely get others to disobey the President of the United States!"

 

[mandrill]

Dell founder gives $6B to Trump’s kid investment accounts raising the amount families can receive | The Independent


Dell founder Michael Dell and his wife Susan have pledged $6.25 billion from their own wealth to help fund President Donald Trump’s bank accounts for children, benefitting roughly 25 million kids.

Trump unveiled the massive donation alongside the Dells in the Roosevelt Room on Tuesday, calling their gift “one of the largest private donations in American history, which will directly benefit the next generation of American children.”

The president said the accounts, which were established in the One Big Beautiful Bill tax cut and spending package passed along party lines by the GOP-led Congress earlier this year, would be “the first ... real trust funds for every American child, allowing family members, employers, corporations, generous donors to contribute money that will be invested and grow over the course of a child's life to be used for their benefit after they turn 18.”



“These accounts will track the overall stock market and will be 100% private property controlled by the child's guardians,” Trump said, adding that the technology entrepreneur’s gift was being made in honor of America’s semiquincentennial celebrations set for next year.

“This will give millions of dollars, millions of children, children, middle class families, a stake in American prosperity, a benefit from the rising stock market, and a better shot at the American dream,” he added.



The government is set to launch the tax-deferred investment accounts for any eligible American children starting next year.


The accounts will benefit children born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, each of whom will receive $1,000 from the federal government. The Dells’ donation allows children up to 10 years old to receive an additional $250, if eligible by virtue of their parents’ household income and their ZIP code.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hailed the accounts as a “major change in philanthropy and for American working families” and “the merging of President Trump's agenda of parallel prosperity, Main Street meets Wall Street.”


“I think we will look back on today and know that these Trump accounts, they have started a new age of the capitalism and market interest for the whole country,” Bessent said.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz, one of the sponsors of the legislation which created the accounts, also claimed the investment vehicles would have a political effect by “creating a new generation of capitalists” because “every child in America is going to be an owner of the biggest employers in this country.”


“We've all seen the sad statistics of how many kids are losing faith in capitalism. Well, ten years from now, a little boy is going to pull out his phone and he's going to look at his app, and he's going to see his Trump account. And instead of thinking of big, bad, scary corporations, that little boy is going to say, I own 50 bucks of Apple. I own 100 bucks of Dell I own 75 bucks of McDonald's,” Cruz said.

Hours ahead of the president’s White House announcement, the Dells revealed in a video posted on X that they would make the massive investment in “Trump accounts” to expand the amount of seed money children can receive.

“We’ve seen what happens when a child gets even a small financial head start; their world expands,” Michael Dell said

Michael Dell had previously signaled he would invest in “Trump accounts.” In the video, he encouraged other leaders to invest in the retirement accounts.


open image in gallery
Michael Dell, the founder of Dell Technologies, highlighted the importance of giving children a financial head start while announcing his $6 billion investment (Getty Images)
“To philanthropists, companies, community leaders, if you want to be part of something truly meaningful, for our kids, for our communities, for our country – join us,” Michael Dell said in the video.

The donation marks one of the largest philanthropic investments ever to go directly to Americans.

In a statement, White House Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai hailed the investment accounts for kids as “a revolutionary investment by the federal government into the next generation of American children.”

“It’s also President Trump’s call to action for American businesses and philanthropists to do their part, too – Michael and Susan Dell’s $6 billion investment into America’s children is the first of many announcements to come for America’s children,” Desai added.


Michael Dell has been a supporter of the ‘Trump accounts,’ believing they can help children get a financial head start (Getty Images)
The idea for accessible investment accounts arose from Brad Gerstner, the CEO of Altimeter Capital. Gerstenr set up a nonprofit, Invest America, to push for the creation of bank accounts in which the federal government would give $1,000 to each child, according to the New York Times.

Michael Dell, a friend of Gerstner, liked the idea and joined the initiative.

Gerstner initially reached out to the Biden administration for support on the investment accounts, but failed to rally enough support among members of Congress. Ultimately, the Trump administration was receptive to the idea, and Republican Senator Ted Cruz introduced the “Invest America Act” that was later folded into the party-line package which Trump signed into law earlier this year.



The accounts are set to open next year – though there are few details about the process for opening one and how it will invest in the stock market.

To qualify, a baby needs a Social Security number. Only those born between 2025 and 2028 will receive the government’s $1,000 starting funds. Parents and others may contribute up to $5,000 per year until the child turns 18 years old.

 

[mandrill]

Trump’s 'personal decline' is becoming hard to ignore — even for Republicans: analysis


President Donald Trump's decline in power is becoming hard to ignore as his sway over Republicans diminishes.

"I think some of the weaknesses that are inherent to Trump in his second term are becoming a little more obvious," Donegan says.

Donegan says that while Trump's "changes to the constitutional paradigm" and empowerment of the executive branch won't magically disappear, there are some notable challenges to the presidency.

"Trump seems to be in a degree of personal decline," she says, and "that decline is becoming hard to ignore."

The government shutdown, for one, "was actually quite damaging for Donald Trump," Donegan says. "I think the persistence of high prices — particularly now, exacerbated as some of his tariffs go into effect — has been bad for Trump."

Donegan also believes that the once fiercely loyal base of Republican lawmakers is finally starting to turn on Trump as they see the writing on the wall.

"The very cynical reception that the Supreme Court case about those tariffs got at oral argument fractured the notion that all of these Republican politicians and political operatives — among which I do count the Supreme Court justices, or at least the majority of them — are in a state of permanent and absolute obedience to Donald Trump. That’s beginning to crack," she notes.

"Democratic wipeouts" at the November elections coupled with a "fracturing within the MAGA coalition in the ranks below Donald Trump" are signs of this cracking. "[As] some of these more ambitious MAGA Republicans start to look toward their own post-Trump future, they’re beginning to position themselves to be best situated to ascend further after the old man exits the stage," Donegan says.

These factors have led to Republican lawmakers pushing back on Trump and his policies.

"Now it seems like contradicting him is much more possible," Donegan notes.

Trump's physical decline is also hard to ignore, she says, as signs of aging and cognitive issues are apparent.

"I think Donald Trump is a little bit out to lunch. As the president, he is really showing his age," she notes.

"He’s not appearing in public as often, and when he does appear in public, he looks old — he looks like a much older man than he did in 2016, 2017, right? The stress of the presidency and the passage of time have had visible effects on a man who was never very robustly physically healthy to begin with," according to Donegan.

Donegan says Trump's role as president has been diminished as well.

"So I think what you have is a president who is occupying a kind of figurehead position, and then some very powerful but not very accountable people within his administration who are doing the actual work of governing," she says.

"I’m thinking particularly of people like [Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)] Russ Vought and [Deputy Chief of Staff] Stephen Miller," she adds.

As Vought, Miller and others effect policy change in the administration, Trump, she says, is busy doing other things.

"So I think his base is fracturing, his coalition is fracturing, and he’s spending a lot of time doing stuff that doesn’t seem to be helping," she says.

"He’s throwing Gatsby parties at Mar-a-Lago during the government shutdown. He seems to spend a majority of his time on the ballroom build. And the destruction of the East Wing did have a symbolic hit in a way that maybe some people didn’t expect it to," Donegan says.


"He seems to be interested in old-man projects — retiree stuff — that seems to be his personal preoccupation," she adds.