Category: fox-news/person/donald-trump

Reporter’s Notebook: Impeachapalooza is here to stay

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

And you thought they just wanted to impeach former President Joe Biden.

Maybe former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas – whom the House did impeach last year.

How about former FBI Director Christopher Wray? Former Attorney General Merrick Garland? Former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin?

That is so 2023.

INJUNCTION LIFTED ON TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS SLASHING FEDERAL DEI SUPPORT

This is 2025. The Biden administration is long gone.

But the concept of impeachment hasn’t waned for some House Republicans. And even for President Donald Trump.

D.C. Circuit Court Judge James Boasberg ordered a two-week halt to the deportation of Venezuelan gang members after Trump leaned on the Enemy Aliens Act of 1798 to remove them from the U.S.

The president didn’t mention Boasberg by name, but he whipsawed the jurist on social media.

"This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" wrote President Trump. He characterized Boasberg as a "Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama."

Elon Musk has pushed for the removal of judges whose rulings run afoul of the administration. But freshman Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced articles of impeachment for Boasberg, accusing him of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Gill argues that Boasberg "has done exactly what the Supreme Court commanded not be done." Gill’s resolution asserts that Boasberg "illegitimately tried to substitute his own judgment for the elected President of the United States."

There are a total of four federal judges who could face articles of impeachment in the House.

It’s unclear whether this effort could pick up steam. If conservatives wanted to go to the mat, they could try to make their impeachment resolutions "privileged" in the House. That would compel the House to consider such a proposal immediately. It also would go over the head of House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., filed articles of impeachment for Biden two years ago. After inaction, Boebert attempted to fast-track her plan, circumventing the GOP leadership – to say nothing of hearings and preparation of the articles in committee. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., argued that impeachment was "too serious" to sidestep the rigorous steps usually undertaken. So, Republican leaders intervened.

Once Boebert’s resolution was up, they moved to euthanize the plan by sending it to the Homeland Security Committee. The full House actually voted on the motion to dispatch the resolution to committee – not on impeachment. Otherwise, the House would have voted on impeaching Mr. Biden on the spot – committee investigation or not.

The motion to send the resolution to committee actually inoculated a lot of Republicans from political angst. They wanted to talk about impeaching Biden. But few actually wanted to impeach Biden.

Impeachment works the same with federal judges as it does with presidents or cabinet secretaries. The House has only impeached four federal judges in the past 36 years. The most recent impeachments were for the late Judge Thomas Porteous and former Judge Samuel Kent – both in 2009.

After the House impeached Porteous, the Senate conducted a short trial and convicted him. That removed Porteous from the bench. The House also impeached Kent, but he resigned before the Senate could conduct a trial to remove him.

Porteous was accused of accepting cash and bribes from lawyers arguing cases before him. A court convicted and sentenced Kent to nearly three years in jail for sexually abusing female employees. The Senate removed neither based on their judicial rulings.

But here is what to watch:

How much pressure will Trump and Musk apply on Johnson to advance the articles of impeachment?

Johnson may have to finesse this. But Gill and other conservatives could attempt to go over the head of the Speaker, making their resolution "privileged." That is what Boebert did, and it would force the House to tangle with the impeachment articles in some fashion. Republican leaders could move to table the resolution or try to send it to committee. Thus, the actual vote would not be on impeachment but on an issue two steps removed from that.

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts took the extraordinary step of publishing a statement about impeachment threats.

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," said Roberts this week.

Fox is told House GOP leaders are anxious about what to expect from conservative lawmakers, stoked by the possibility of impeachment. GOP leaders simply don’t want to burn valuable time on this issue.

But they’d like to talk about it.

Trump supports a bill crafted by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., titled the "No Rogue Rulings Act." The bill limits the scope of rulings by U.S. district judges, preventing their decisions from carrying nationwide weight.

"The President wants this," two White House sources told Fox News' Liz Elkind.

Issa characterized impeachment as a rather "dull tool" that should be restricted to actual criminality or malfeasance in office – such as the cases with Kent and Porteous. House Republican leaders could also shop the Issa bill to conservatives itching for impeachment as an alternative. However, even if the House were to OK Issa’s legislation, it would likely die in the Senate. It would need 60 votes to clear a filibuster.

By the same token, if the House were to impeach Boasberg or any other judge, pressure mounts on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to hold an impeachment trial. That could chew up valuable floor time as the Senate tries to wrestle with the complex "budget reconciliation" process to avoid a filibuster on President Trump’s plan to cut taxes and reduce the size of government.

Moreover, a Senate impeachment trial certainly would not result in removal. It takes 67 votes to convict a federal judge and extract them from the bench. That is not going to happen.

But the controversy over rulings of federal judges and President Trump’s executive orders won’t dissipate any time soon. Depending on your metric, federal courts have issued around 50 injunctions to halt various administrative moves by the President. There are anywhere from 130 to 140 total legal challenges floating about the court system.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In 2023 and 2024, lots of conservatives chattered actively about the possibility of impeaching then-President Biden. Some saw it as retribution for the dual impeachments of President Trump. Others knew they could fundraise off impeachment. Maybe score some plaudits on social media. Still, others saw it as good politics in their district. They were happy to talk about impeachment for Biden but not necessarily vote for it. That’s why members looked at low-hanging fruit like Mayorkas. They considered targeting Lloyd Austin and the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Some of the loudest voices in the Republican Party will now clamor for the impeachment of "activist judges." That is what they say publicly, but public conversations are very different from private ones. And that is why "impeachapalooza" is here to stay in the 119th Congress.

Court order halting deportation flights ‘unconstitutionally impedes’ on executive branch, Trump allies argue

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: America First Legal (AFL) and Texas GOP Rep. Brandon Gill are supporting President Donald Trump's invocation of a 1798 wartime law, arguing a previous order blocking Trump's deportation plans "unconstitutionally impedes" his presidential authority. 

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg came under fire this past week after blocking the Trump administration on Saturday from invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), for 14 days. 

In his order, Boasberg ordered any flights in the air to return to U.S. soil immediately.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

"This law was passed by Congress in 1798," America First Legal Senior Counsel James Rogers said in a statement released. "Until now — for more than 226 years — courts have universally held that they do not have the power to interfere with the President’s authority as Commander in Chief to decide when to invoke the Act and expel aliens under its terms."

In its amicus filing, AFL states that Gill "believes that Tren de Aragua poses a clear and present danger to the United States," saying he supports the president's efforts to "neutralize this threat quickly and efficiently."

"He sees the President’s use of the Enemy Aliens Act as vital to ensuring the safety of his constituents," the filing reads. 

SCOOP: IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP TREN DE ARAGUA DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

AFL argues that the AEA "confers on the President the power to invoke the Act’s provisions in cases of invasion or predatory incursion," saying such authority is not reviewable by the courts. 

The filing notes the president's commander in chief post, as vested by the Constitution, saying that the AEA "statutorily grants the President wartime powers," and courts cannot appropriately "second-guess" the president's decisions and discretion over the AEA's implementation.

"At best, the Plaintiffs seek to use the federal courts to deliver a political victory," the filing reads. "There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs are here illegally. Enjoining implementation of the TdA Proclamation unconstitutionally impedes the President’s ability to respond to national security threats."

On Thursday, Boasberg said the administration had missed a previously-set court deadline to disclose information on the deportation flights to El Salvador. Boasberg noted in an order issued that day that the government "again evaded its obligations" to submit the requested information even after he had allowed them to submit it under seal. 

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

The filing they submitted hours after the deadline failed to answer his questions.

Boasberg said the court had received a six-paragraph declaration from a regional ICE office director in Harlingen, Texas, that stated Cabinet secretaries are "actively considering whether to invoke the state secrets [act] privileges over the other facts requested by the Court’s order."

"This is woefully insufficient," Boasberg said. 

Following Boasberg's Saturday emergency order siding with the plaintiffs, Democracy Forward and the ACLU, Fox News Digital was first to learn that Gill had filed impeachment articles against Boasberg, saying at the time, "This is another example of a rogue judge overstepping his…authority."

"For the past several weeks, we've seen several rogue activist judges try to impede the president from exercising, not only the mandate voters gave him, but his democratic and constitutional authority to keep the American people safe," Gill told Fox News Digital. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Gill's resolution accuses Boasberg of abusing his power in levying an emergency pause on the Trump administration's deportation plans. 

The resolution text says the order "jeopardizes the safety of the nation, represents an abuse of judicial power, and is detrimental to the orderly functioning of the judiciary. Using the powers of his office, Chief Judge Boasberg has attempted to seize power from the Executive Branch and interfere with the will of the American people."

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch and Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report. 

Judges v Trump: Here are the key court battles halting the White House agenda

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The recent wave of preliminary injunctions from federal judges has stymied President Donald Trump's early agenda in his second White House term, prompting new questions as to how far the administration might go if it opts to challenge these court orders. 

Federal judges across the country have blocked Trump's ban on transgender persons serving in the U.S. military, ordered the reinstatement of core functions of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, and halted Elon Musk's government efficiency organization, DOGE, from oversight and access to government agencies, among other things. They've also temporarily halted deportations, or attempted to, so judges can consider the relevant laws.

Combined, the wave of rulings has been met with outrage from Trump administration officials, some of whom said they plan to appeal the rulings to the Supreme Court, if needed. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has used her podium to rail against "radical left-wing judges," who she has alleged are acting with a political agenda to block Trump's executive orders.

"These judicial activists want to unilaterally stop President Trump from deporting foreign terrorists, hiring and firing executive branch employees, and determining the readiness of our troops," Leavitt said on X, expanding on remarks made Wednesday at a press briefing.

LAWSUIT TRACKER: NEW RESISTANCE BATTLING TRUMP'S SECOND TERM THROUGH ONSLAUGHT OF LAWSUITS TAKING AIM AT EOS

"They MUST be reined in," she added.

Some of Trump's supporters in Congress have threatened judges who block the president's agenda with impeachment, while his critics worry the president's attacks on the judiciary will collapse the constitutional system, bringing to the fore an impassioned debate over the separation of powers in the Constitution. 

Here's a rundown of where things stand. 

U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang, an Obama appointee, ruled on Tuesday that DOGE's efforts to dismantle USAID "on an accelerated basis" likely violated the U.S. Constitution "in multiple ways" and ordered the partial restoration of the agency's functions, including reinstatement of personnel access to email and payment systems.

Chuang's preliminary injunction is believed to be the first to directly invoke Musk himself. It said Musk could interact with USAID employees only after being granted "express authorization" from an agency official, and it blocked DOGE from engaging in any further work at USAID.

Hours later, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes issued a preliminary injunction barring the Pentagon from enforcing Trump's order on transgender persons serving in the military.

Reyes, the first openly gay member of the court, wrote in a scathing 79-page ruling that the Trump administration failed to demonstrate that transgender service members would hinder military readiness, relying on what she described as "pure conjecture" to attempt to justify the policy and thus causing undue harm to thousands of current U.S. service members.  

SHELTERS, JESUS, AND MISS PAC-MAN: US JUDGE GRILLS DOJ OVER TRANS POLICY IN DIZZYING LINE OF QUESTIONING

Both rulings are almost certain to be challenged by the Trump administration. In fact, Reyes was so confident that the Justice Department would file an emergency appeal that she delayed her ruling from taking force until Friday to allow the Trump administration time to file for an emergency stay.

Reyes wasn't wrong. Senior administration officials vowed to challenge the wave of court rulings, which they said are an attempt by the courts to unduly infringe on presidential powers.

"We are appealing this decision, and we will win," Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on social media.

"District court judges have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces…is there no end to this madness?" White House policy adviser Stephen Miller said later in a post on X. 

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

Several other high-profile cases are playing out in real time that could test the fraught relationship between the courts and the executive branch, and next steps remain deeply uncertain.

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg warned the Trump administration on Wednesday that it could face consequences for violating his court order temporarily blocking it from invoking a little-known wartime law to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals from U.S. soil, including alleged members of the gang Tren de Aragua, for 14 days. 

Boasberg handed down the temporary restraining order Saturday evening, around the time that the Trump administration proceeded to deport hundreds of migrants, including Venezuelan nationals subject to the Alien Enemies Act, to El Salvador. He also ordered in a bench ruling shortly after that any planes carrying these individuals return to the U.S. 

But at least one plane with migrants deported by the law in question touched down later that evening in El Salvador.

"Oopsie, too late," El Salvador's president said in a post on X.

In the days since, government lawyers citing national security protections have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights and whether the plane (or planes) of migrants knowingly departed U.S. soil after the judge ordered them not to do so.

The White House has repeatedly asserted that lower court judges like Boasberg should not have the power to prevent the president from executing what it argues is a lawful agenda, though the judges in question have disagreed that the president's actions all follow the law.

"A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil," Leavitt told Fox News.

Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, said in an interview on "Fox & Friends" this week: "We are not stopping."

"I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming," Homan said, adding, "Another fight. Another fight every day."

SCOTUS RULES ON NEARLY $2 BILLION IN FROZEN USAID PAYMENTS

The administration's appeals, which are all almost guaranteed, may have a better chance of success than previous cases that reached appellate courts, including one in which the Supreme Court ruled against the president.

There are two types of near-term relief that federal judges can offer plaintiffs before convening both parties to the court for a full case on the merits: a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, or a TRO. 

A TRO immediately blocks an action for 14 days to allow more time for consideration. But it's a difficult test for plaintiffs to satisfy: they must prove that the order in question would pose immediate and "irreparable harm"– an especially burdensome level of proof, especially if it hinges on an action or order that has not yet come into force. 

The outcomes, as a result, are very narrow in scope. One could look to the TRO request granted by U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali earlier this month, which required the Trump administration to pay out $2 billion in owed money for previously completed USAID projects. 

Since it did not deal with current contracts or ongoing payments, the Supreme Court, which upheld Ali's ruling, 5-4, had little room to intervene.

The request for a preliminary injunction, however, is a bit more in depth. Successful plaintiffs must demonstrate to the court four things in seeking the ruling: First, that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the claim when it is heard later on; that the balance of equities tips in their favor; that the injunction is considered within the sphere of public interest; and finally, that they are "likely" to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of court action.

This wider level of discretion granted to the district courts in a preliminary injunction ruling invites much more scrutiny, and more room for the government to appeal the ruling to higher courts should they see fit. 

It's a strategy both legal analysts and even Trump himself dangled as a likely possibility as they look to enforce some of their most sweeping policy actions. 

Trump suggested this week that Boasberg, tasked with overseeing the escalating deportation fight, be impeached, describing him in a post on Truth Social as a "crooked" judge and someone who, unlike himself, was not elected president.

"He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!" Trump said.

The post earned the rebuke of Chief Justice John Roberts, who noted that it broke with 200 years of established law. And on Thursday, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, James Blair, appeared to punt the issue to Congress.

He told Politico in an interview that Trump’s remarks were shining "a big old spotlight" on what it views as a partisan decision, but noted impeaching a judge would be up to Republicans in Congress, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who he said would ultimately "figure out what can be passed or not" in Congress.

"That’s the speaker’s job. And I won’t speak for what the speaker’s opinion of that is," he said. "I think the thing that is important right now is the president is highlighting a critical issue."

SCOOP: Bill preventing activist judges from blocking Trump’s agenda backed by White House

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: President Donald Trump has shown interest in a House GOP bill that would block federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, two sources familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital.

Top White House aides communicated to senior Capitol Hill staff this week that "the president wants this," the sources said. They said the White House felt that time was of the essence in the matter and that Trump wanted Congress to move swiftly.

It comes after various U.S. district court judges issued more than a dozen nationwide orders at least temporarily blocking Trump's executive orders.

The bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., if it passed Congress and was signed into law, would bar such judges in most cases from blocking Trump policies on a national scale.

INJUNCTION LIFTED ON TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS SLASHING FEDERAL DEI SUPPORT

Issa's office did not directly confirm whether the exchange occurred but told Fox News Digital, "President Trump knows we need a national solution to this major malfunction in the federal judiciary, and we think we have the momentum to get this done."

A White House official told Fox News Digital they would not get ahead of the president on legislative matters.

However, the idea has appeared to gain traction in the upper levels of the White House. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller complained on X twice Thursday about federal district judges having the ability to affect policies for the entire country, though he did not mention Issa's bill specifically.

"It takes 5 Supreme Court justices to issue a ruling that affects the whole nation. Yet lone District Court judges assume the authority to unilaterally dictate the policies of the entire executive branch of government," Miller posted. 

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

He posted again later, writing, "Under what theory of the constitution does a single Marxist judge in San Francisco have the same executive power as the Commander-in-Chief elected by the whole nation to lead the executive branch? No such theory exists. It is merely naked judicial tyranny."

Issa's legislation reads, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court."

The bill advanced through the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month. Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told CNN on Wednesday, "We think that's good. We passed it through the committee. We'll try to look to pass it on the House floor and move it through the process."

Jordan told Fox News Digital last month he thought Issa's bill "makes sense," and the committee would "try to move fairly quick on that bill." Fox News Digital reached out to the House Judiciary Committee for comment on Trump's backing of Issa's bill but did not hear back by press time.

However, it comes amid some disagreements among congressional Republicans about how to heed Trump's call to deal with "activist" judges.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, recently introduced a resolution to impeach U.S. District Judge James Boasberg after he ordered a 14-day emergency stop to Trump's plans to deport suspected Tren De Aragua gang members to El Salvador.

Gill argued that Boasberg abused his power in doing so, and told Fox News Digital this week that he hoped the resolution would go through the regular committee process – something Jordan seemed open to.

TRUMP SCORES BIG LEGAL WIN AGAINST PULITZER PRIZE BOARD MEMBERS AS LAWSUIT MOVES TO DISCOVERY

Jordan told multiple outlets he would potentially hold hearings on Gill's resolution, which is a traditional step in the impeachment inquiry process.

Trump posted on Truth Social earlier this week that he wanted Boasberg impeached as well.

However, multiple sources told Fox News Digital that House GOP leaders are more wary of the impeachment route, given the virtual guarantee that such a move would not get the necessary Democrats to pass the Senate.

"It's another intense whipping process for something that won't move at all in the Senate," one senior House GOP aide said. "I think the White House is trying to find something easier to do."

House Speaker Mike Johnson's office told Fox News Digital that he was looking at all available options when reached for comment on House Republicans' path forward on Thursday morning.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Activist judges with political agendas pose a significant threat to the rule of law, equal justice, and the separation of powers. The Speaker looks forward to working with the Judiciary Committee as they review all available options under the Constitution to address this urgent matter," a spokesperson for Johnson, R-La., said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, did not immediately comment on Issa's bill but a spokesperson told Fox News Digital, "The recent surge of sweeping decisions by district judges merits serious scrutiny. The Senate Judiciary Committee will be closely examining this topic in a hearing and exploring potential legislative solutions in the weeks ahead." 

Fox News Digital's Andrew Mark Miller contributed to this report.

Judges blocking Trump’s executive orders are acting ‘erroneously,’ White House says

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The judicial branch has been behaving "erroneously," according to White House press secretary, after several judges have blocked various executive orders from President Donald Trump. 

"I would like to point out that the judges in this country are acting erroneously," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Wednesday news briefing. "We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench."

On Saturday, Judge James Boasberg with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order halting the Trump administration from deporting migrants allegedly part of the Tren de Aragua gang under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The law permits deportation of natives and citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing.

However, flights carrying the migrants continued to El Salvador, and Leavitt said Sunday the order had "no lawful basis" since Boasberg issued it after the flights departed from U.S. airspace.

THESE ARE THE JUDGES GOING TOE TO TOE AGAINST TRUMP'S AGENDA 

Meanwhile, Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment in a social media post Tuesday, prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare statement condemning Trump’s remarks. 

Specifically, Roberts said that "it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision" for more than two centuries." 

In response, Leavitt said Wednesday that the Supreme Court needs to "reign in" judges who are behaving as "partisan activists" and are "undermining" the judicial branch, while also asserting that Trump does respect Robert. 

Efforts to oust Boasberg have also been launched in Congress. For example, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, unveiled an impeachment resolution against Boasberg Tuesday, claiming that Boasberg was "guilty of high crimes" in a post on social media. 

WHITE HOUSE BLASTS JUDGE FOR ATTEMPTING TO HALT DEPORTATION FLIGHTS TO EL SALVADOR: ‘NO LAWFUL BASIS’

"It's incredibly apparent that there is a concerted effort by the far left to judge shop, to pick judges who are clearly acting as partisan activists from the bench in an attempt to derail this president's agenda," Leavitt said. "We will not allow that to happen." 

Leavitt said that while flights to deport illegal immigrants to El Salvador are currently not scheduled, the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign will continue as litigation continues on this case. 

"We don't have any flights planned specifically, but we will continue with the mass deportations," Leavitt said. "And I would just like to point out that the judge in this case is essentially trying to say that the President doesn't have the executive authority to deport foreign terrorists…That is an egregious abuse of the bench." 

Fox News Digital’s Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report. 

Trump DOJ hammers judge’s ‘digressive micromanagement,’ seeks more time to answer 5 questions

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Justice Department accused a federal judge of "digressive micromanagement" on Wednesday in relation to a case involving deportation flights that sent Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador over the weekend.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Justice Department to submit answers to five questions after it insisted Tuesday that the flights did not violate a court order. Boasberg granted an emergency order Saturday to temporarily block the flights from taking place for 14 days while his court considered the legality of using the 1798 wartime-era Alien Enemies Act to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals and alleged members of the violent gang Tren de Aragua. 

"The Court has now spent more time trying to ferret out information about the Government’s flight schedules and relations with foreign countries than it did in investigating the facts before certifying the class action in this case," read a filing Wednesday that was co-signed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and others. "That observation reflects how upside-down this case has become, as digressive micromanagement has outweighed consideration of the case’s legal issues." 

"The distraction of the specific facts surrounding the movements of an airplane has derailed this case long enough and should end until the Circuit Court has had a chance to weigh in. The Government respects this Court and has complied with its request to present the Government’s position on the legality of the Court’s [Temporary Restraining Order] and the Government’s compliance with that TRO," they wrote. 

DOJ INSISTS EL SALVADOR DEPORTATION FLIGHTS DID NOT VIOLATE COURT ORDER

Boasberg ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to answer five questions, submitting declarations to him under seal by noon on Wednesday: "1) What time did the plane take off from U.S. soil and from where? 2) What time did it leave U.S. airspace? 3) What time did it land in which foreign country (including if it made more than one stop)? 4) What time were individuals subject solely to the Proclamation transferred out of U.S. custody? and 5) How many people were aboard solely on the basis of the Proclamation?" 

However, the Justice Department said in their filing today that "Defendants are currently evaluating whether to invoke the state secrets privilege as to portions of the information sought by this Court’s order." 

"Whether and how to invoke that privilege involves both weighty considerations and specific procedures that are not amenable to the 21-hour turnaround period currently provided by this Court’s order," it continued. 

"The underlying premise of these orders, including the most recent one requiring the production of these facts ex parte today at noon, is that the Judicial Branch is superior to the Executive Branch, particularly on non-legal matters involving foreign affairs and national security. The Government disagrees. The two branches are coequal, and the Court’s continued intrusions into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch, especially on a non-legal and factually irrelevant matter, should end," the Justice Department added.

It also said "disclosure of the information sought could implicate the affairs of United States allies and their cooperation with the United States Government in fighting terrorist organizations" and "such disclosure would unquestionably create serious repercussions for the Executive Branch’s ability to conduct foreign affairs." 

IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

"What began as a dispute between litigants over the President’s authority to protect the national security and manage the foreign relations of the United States pursuant to both a longstanding Congressional authorization and the President’s core constitutional authorities has devolved into a picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding," the Justice Department declared. 

Boasberg responded to the Justice Department Wednesday by giving it another day to answer his five questions "or to invoke the state-secrets doctrine and explain the basis for such invocation," according to court filings.

"Mere hours before their filing deadline and characterizing the Court’s proceedings as ‘a picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding,’ Defendants seek to stay the Court’s Order requiring them to produce in camera particular information," Boasberg wrote. "Although their grounds for such request at first blush are not persuasive, the Court will extend the deadline for one more day."

"The Court seeks this information, not as a ‘micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expedition,’ but to determine if the Government deliberately flouted its Orders issued on March 15, 2025, and, if so, what the consequences should be," Boasberg added.

TRUMP CALLS FOR JUDGE IN DEPORTATION LEGAL BATTLE TO BE IMPEACHED

In granting the emergency order Saturday, Boasberg sided with the plaintiffs – Democracy Forward and the ACLU – who had argued that the deportations would likely pose imminent and "irreparable" harm to the migrants under the time proposed.  

Boasberg also ordered the Trump administration on Saturday to immediately halt any planned deportations and to notify their clients that "any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States," he said. 

However, the decision apparently came too late to stop two planes filled with more than 200 migrants who were deported to El Salvador.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News in an interview that a plane carrying hundreds of migrants, including more than 130 persons removed under the Alien Enemies Act, had already "left U.S. airspace" by the time the order was handed down. 

Fox News' Breanne Deppisch and David Spunt contributed to this report.

DeSantis proposes solution as Trump’s agenda is stymied by judges

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

As aspects of President Donald Trump's agenda are stymied by judges amid legal challenges, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has suggested that Congress could strip federal courts of jurisdiction.

"Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place. The sabotaging of President Trump’s agenda by ‘resistance’ judges was predictable — why no jurisdiction-stripping bills tee’d up at the onset of this Congress?" DeSantis wrote in a Wednesday post on X.

When someone responded by asking how such a move could pass when 60 votes would be needed to push it through the Senate, DeSantis replied, "Attach it to a ‘must pass' bill…"

JUDGE ORDERS REINSTATEMENT OF USAID FUNCTIONS, SAYS DOGE EFFORT TO SHUTTER AGENCY LIKELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

DeSantis, who sought the 2024 Republican presidential nod but ultimately dropped out and backed Trump after the GOP Iowa presidential caucus, floated the idea of stripping federal courts of jurisdiction when replying to a tweet from U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas.

"Lots of noise about impeachment. We must study every ruling & act accordingly w/ everything on the table (noting: 14 Dem votes required in Senate). But, more fertile ground… 1) House can pass a resolution stating there is/was an invasion, 2) we can defund radical courts," Roy had posted.

EL SALVADOR'S BUKELE WEIGHS IN AFTER TRUMP'S CALL TO IMPEACH JUDGE: ‘THE U.S. IS FACING A JUDICIAL COUP’

In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump called for the impeachment of a judge, apparently referring to Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

"This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President," Trump declared in the post. "This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY."

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, announced that he had introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP'S TRANSGENDER MILITARY EXECUTIVE ORDER

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement on Tuesday, "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

Fox News' Shannon Bream and Bill Mears contributed to this report

Trump fires Democratic FTC commissioners

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

President Donald Trump fired two Democratic commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday, both of whom now say they plan to sue to get their jobs back.

The firings hit Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, who represent the Democratic minority in the five-member commission. The White House did not immediately confirm Trump's firing of the officials to Fox News Digital, but both Bedoya and Slaughter released public statements saying they intend to sue to return to their roles.

"I'm a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission. The president just illegally fired me," Bedoya wrote on social media, arguing Trump wants the FTC to "be a lapdog for his golfing buddies."

Slaughter released a similar statement saying Trump "illegally fired" her, arguing the move was "violating the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent."

RUBIO HEADS TO PANAMA, LATIN AMERICA TO PURSUE TRUMP'S 'GOLDEN AGE' AGENDA

"We are still commissioners. We're suing to make that clear for everyone," Bedoya said in a follow-up statement.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, a Republican first appointed to the commission by President Biden and then made chairman by Trump, said he saw no issues with the firings on Tuesday.

"President Donald J. Trump is the head of the executive branch and is vested with all of the executive power in our government," Ferguson wrote. "I have no doubts about his constitutional authority to remove commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability for our government."

"I wish Commissioners Slaughter and Bedoya well, and I thank them for their service," he added.

The FTC firings are only the latest battle over the limits of Trump's executive authority. His administration is facing numerous lawsuits from disgruntled former employees across the federal government, and several federal judges have sought to hamper his administration's efforts.

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg verbally issued a 14-day restraining order to immediately halt the Trump administration's Tren de Aragua deportation plan. Trump was deporting the gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, and the order could have forced two planes full of TdA gang members to return to U.S. soil.

Trump's efforts to trim the federal government with Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have also led to a litany of legal challenges.

Reuters contributed to this report.

El Salvador’s Bukele weighs in after Trump’s call to impeach judge: ‘The U.S. is facing a judicial coup’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

After U.S. President Donald Trump called for the impeachment of a judge, President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele asserted in a post on X that "The U.S. is facing a judicial coup."

Elon Musk agreed with the foreign leader, sharing the tweet and commenting, "1000%."

In a post on Truth Social, Trump, apparently referring to Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, called the judge a "Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator," noting that he had been nominated by President Barack Obama.

TRUMP CALLS FOR JUDGE IN DEPORTATION LEGAL BATTLE TO BE IMPEACHED

"This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY," Trump declared in the post.

Trump recently issued a proclamation that pointed to the Alien Enemies Act as providing the authority to remove Venezuelan citizens 14 and older who belong to Tren de Aragua if they are not naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the U.S.

In response to a legal challenge regarding Trump's move, Judge Boasberg sought to temporarily block the removal of such individuals pursuant to the proclamation.

SCOOP: IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP TREN DE ARAGUA DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

But flights that had reportedly departed prior to the judge's order did not reverse course.

The administration recently transported 261 illegal aliens to El Salvador, of whom 137 were deported under the Alien Enemies Act, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt noted on Monday.

Bukele announced on Sunday that "the first 238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, arrived in our country," adding that "the U.S. has also sent us 23 MS-13 members wanted by Salvadoran justice, including two ringleaders."

US PAID EL SALVADOR TO TAKE VENEZUELAN TREN DE ARAGUA MEMBERS: ‘PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR,’ WHITE HOUSE SAYS

Trump raised the issue again in a post shortly after midnight. "If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!" he declared in the post shared just minutes into Wednesday.

How Donald Trump dominates the news, both positively and negatively

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Associated Press, not exactly a White House favorite, has shot itself in the foot.

The following retraction is nothing short of humiliating:

"The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard saying President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin ‘are very good friends.’ Gabbard was talking about Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The AP will publish a corrected version of the story."

TRUMP ACCUSES BIG MEDIA OF ‘ILLEGAL’ REPORTING, VIRTUALLY ABOLISHES VOICE OF AMERICA

Whoa! How do you run that piece in the first place without having it nailed down?

The wire service, you may recall, is suing the Trump administration for ousting its reporters from the White House pool over its refusal to refer to "Gulf of America." So, this unforced error puts the White House in I-told-you-so mode.

On Monday, when Trump was at the Kennedy Center, an NBC reporter tried to ask a question, Trump asked, "Who are you with?"

After the journalist identified himself, the president said: "I don’t want to talk to NBC anymore. I think you’re so discredited." 

The Trump team later posted the exchange with "mic drop" emojis.

The point is that Trump dominates the news no matter what he does. And, as I’ve been saying for the 35 years I’ve known him, even a torrent of negative publicity helps him because his media detractors are playing on his turf.

While Trump was visiting the Kennedy Center, he "floated" the idea of personally hosting the annual awards show. And who’s going to stop him, since he’s purged the Democratic board members?

ELON MUSK, LIGHTNING ROD, WHO CALLS AN OPPONENT 'TRAITOR,' BECOMES A HIGH-PROFILE TARGET

The ratings, he said, would skyrocket. And he’s right about that.

As the New York Times notes, a younger Trump dreamed of becoming a Broadway producer. He now says the Kennedy Center will concentrate on producing "Broadway hits."

And by the way, Trump released 80,000 pages of JFK assassination files yesterday and has asked for no redactions.

The president can make news on the slightest whim, just by posting on Truth Social.

He just went after Judge James Boasberg, who ordered the deportations of mostly Venezuelan gang members to be stopped while planes were still in the air:   

"This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY."

The posting drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts:

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

DONALD TRUMP, FACING TERRIBLE COVERAGE, SOFTENS TONE AND TACTICS FOR ELON MUSK’S DOGE CRUSADE

The president is also renewing his habit of going after journalists personally. Ashley Parker had a highly successful career at the New York Times and Washington Post–she’s also an MSNBC analyst–who recently joined the Atlantic.

She asked Trump for an interview. 

After dismissing the liberal Atlantic as a "Third Rate Magazine," Trump posted:

"Ashley Parker is not capable of doing a fair and unbiased interview. She is a Radical Left Lunatic, and has been as terrible as is possible for as long as I have known her. To this date, she doesn’t even know that I won the Presidency THREE times. If you have some other reporter, let us know, but Ashley is not capable or competent enough to understand the intricacies of High Level politics."

Parker is restrained, not radical, and in bringing up the 2020 election, Trump is asking her to accept something that has never been proven in court or by his own attorney general.

A magazine spokesperson said, "Atlantic reporters are diligent and fair and continue to pursue stories of importance to the public."

And then there is, you know, the actual job of the presidency. Trump reported yesterday on his 90-minute phone call with Vladimir Putin.

They "stressed the need for improved bilateral relations between the United States and Russia" – no surprise there.

"The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace…. 

"They further discussed the need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons and will engage with others to ensure the broadest possible application. The two leaders shared the view that Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel."

And: "The two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has huge upside," including "enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability."

It seems to me that Trump got next to nothing. A 30-day pause in attacks on energy plants and infrastructure, that’s about it. Everything else is subject to negotiations, which gives the Kremlin more time to keep attacking Ukraine and lock in further territorial gains. A real cease-fire seems a long way off.

But whether Trump is on the attack or being attacked, he is driving the news every day, even inserting himself into culture and sports topics. Keep that in mind when the ratings-driven president hosts the Kennedy Center honors.