The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the Trump administration's request to block a lower court's order for the administration to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign aid money, delivering a near-term reprieve to international aid groups and contractors seeking payment for previously completed projects.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices said that the Feb. 26 deadline imposed by a lower court for the Trump administration to pay the funds had already expired and directed the case back to the district court to clarify any additional details on payment.

"Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines," the Court said.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

TRUMP TEMPORARILY THWARTED IN DOGE MISSION TO END USAID

"Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise," Alito wrote. "I am stunned."

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed last Wednesday to temporarily pause a lower court’s decision requiring the Trump administration to pay by 11:59 p.m. all outstanding invoices to foreign aid groups, an amount totaling roughly $1.9 billion – a timeline the Justice Department had argued was "impossible" to comply with. Roberts did not give a reason for agreeing to pause the order issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, though the chief justice had widely been expected to refer the matter to the full court for review.

Still, the decision to send the case back to the lower court to hash out what, exactly, must be paid out by the Trump administration – and when – could allow Trump officials to further stall on repayment.

Foreign aid groups had argued last week that Roberts' pause prevented them from filing a motion of civil contempt against the Trump administration, a legal maneuver that employees from the affected groups said in interviews this week could have expedited their process to claw back the unpaid debt.

At issue is how quickly the Trump administration needs to pay the nearly $2 billion owed to aid groups and contractors for completed projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), at a time when the administration has issued a blanket freeze on all foreign spending in the name of government "efficiency" and eliminating waste.

In a new court filing Monday, Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris said that while the plaintiffs' claims were likely "legitimate," the time U.S. District Judge Amir Ali gave them to pay the outstanding invoices was "not logistically or technically feasible."

Harris also argued Monday that the order could be a violation of executive branch authorities granted by the Constitution to an elected president.

Ordering the Trump administration to make payments on a timeline of the lower court’s choosing, and "without regard to whether the requests are legitimate, or even due yet," Harris said, "intrudes on the president’s foreign affairs powers" and executive branch oversight when it comes to distributing foreign aid.

HERE'S WHY DOZENS OF LAWSUITS SEEKING TO QUASH TRUMP'S EARLY ACTIONS AS PRESIDENT ARE FAILING

Plaintiffs, for their part, rejected that notion in full. They argued in their own Supreme Court filing that the lower court judge had ordered the Trump administration to begin making the owed foreign aid payments more than two weeks ago – a deadline they said the government simply failed to meet, or to even take steps to meet – indicating that the administration had no plans to make good on fulfilling that request.

The Trump administration "never took steps towards compliance" with Judge Ali's order requiring the administration to unfreeze the federal funds to pay the $1.9 billion in owed project payments, attorneys for plaintiffs argued in their own Supreme Court filing. 

They also rejected the administration's assertion in court last week that it would need "multiple weeks" to restart the payment system.

Rather, they said, the Trump administration had moved too quickly to dismantle the systems required to send payments to foreign aid groups in the first place— and to purge the many USAID staffers who could have facilitated a smoother, faster repayment process.

"All of these invoices have already been approved by the front-line managers at USAID, and it's really these payment bottlenecks that the government has itself created" that have caused the problems with repayment, one individual with knowledge of the USAID payments and contractors affected told Fox News Digital in an interview.

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

The high court challenge comes as many of the foreign aid groups who sued the administration earlier this year have already been stripped of the bulk of their funding. This aligns with President Donald Trump's stated plans to cut some 90% of USAID foreign aid contracts and to slash an additional $60 billion in foreign aid spending.

The White House has not yet released a list of which contracts and grants were scheduled for elimination or those to be continued. However, critics have argued that the abrupt withdrawal of U.S. investment and presence around the world risks economic harm, reputational damage and new security risks, both at home and abroad.

Scott Greytak, a director at the group U.S. Transparency International, said in a statement that cutting such a large amount of U.S. foreign aid carries significant economic and security risks. The elimination of U.S. funding for certain projects, especially in countries with higher risks of corruption, could "open the door for increased cross-border corruption, fraud, and other crimes," he said. 

This could create new obstacles for U.S. businesses seeking to open or expand into foreign markets, said Greytak, whose group has active chapters in more than 100 countries globally, and could serve "as an invitation for U.S. competitors, especially China, to fill the vacuum created by the absence of U.S. engagement."

This is a breaking news story. Check back soon for updates.

One thing Shadowveil: Legend of the Five Rings does well is invoke terror. Not just the terror of an overwhelming mass of dark energy encroaching on your fortress, which is what the story suggests; more so, the terror of hoping your little computer-controlled fighters will do the smart thing and then being forced to watch, helpless, as they are consumed by algorithmic choices, bad luck, your strategies, or some combination of all three.

Shadowveil, the first video game based on the more than 30-year-old Legend of the Five Rings fantasy franchise, is a roguelite auto-battler. You pick your Crab Clan hero (berserker hammer-wielder or tactical support type), train up some soldiers, and assign all of them abilities, items, and buffs you earn as you go. When battle starts, you choose which hex to start your fighters on, double-check your load-outs, then click to start and watch what happens. You win and march on, or you lose and regroup at base camp, buying some upgrades with your last run's goods.

In my impressions after roughly seven hours of playing, Shadowveil could do more to soften its learning curve, but it presents a mostly satisfying mix of overwhelming odds and achievement. What's irksome now could get patched, and what's already there is intriguing, especially for the price.

Read full article

Comments

© Palindrome Interactive

With countless legal challenges to the Trump administration's federal spending actions, legal experts say plaintiffs in these suits are attempting to block President Donald Trump's agenda as the courts navigate conceivably new territory. 

"I think this is a continuation of the warfare that we've seen over the past four-plus years during the Biden administration," Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. 

"The only difference now is that the instigators of the lawfare are outside of government, and they're trying to use different advocacy groups, different interest groups to try to throw up obstructions to Donald Trump's actions."

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

The Trump administration so far has become the target of more than 90 lawsuits since the start of the president's second term, many of which are challenging the president's directives. 

Plaintiffs ranging from blue state attorneys general to advocacy and interest groups are specifically challenging Trump's federal spending actions, including the administration's attempt to halt federal funding to various programs and the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) efforts to slash excess government spending.

Smith said he suspects these plaintiffs are attempting to "slow down" the Trump administration's progress and agenda via these lawsuits "even if they know or suspect their lawsuits will ultimately not be successful."

UC Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo told Fox News Digital that the plaintiffs in the spending cases are showing "political weakness" by seeking judicial recourse rather than going to Congress.

"I think that what you're seeing is political weakness, because, if they had popular support, they should go to Congress," Yoo said. "That's the branch for which the Founders expected to be responsible in containing or reacting to any expansion of presidential power that went too far."

JUDGE BLOCKS DOGE FROM ACCESSING EDUCATION DEPARTMENT RECORDS

Despite the public outcry from conservatives that judges blocking Trump's federal spending actions are "activist judges," Yoo said the judges are "confused."

"There's a lot of confusion going on in the lower courts," he said. "I think they misunderstand their proper role."

Smith said that in the cases at hand, many judges are "interposing their own views of what [are] appropriate actions for the executive branch of government," saying this is "not the proper role of a judge." 

"And yet you see some of these judges who are issuing these TROs, they're being very aggressive, and they're impeding on core executive branch functions when it really should be the president and his advisers who get to make important decisions," Smith said. 

Smith added he hopes the Supreme Court is "taking a skeptical eye towards some of these actions by these judges."

Both Smith and Yoo said they expect these challenges to eventually make their way up to the Supreme Court, with Smith saying the high court "is going to have to confront some questions that it's been trying to skirt for several years now."

JUDGE ORDERS TRUMP OFFICIALS TO SIT FOR DEPOSITIONS IN LAWSUIT OVER DOGE ACCESS TO FEDERAL DATABASES

"This has to go to the Supreme Court because you're seeing confusion in the lower courts about what is the proper procedural way to challenge spending freezes," Yoo said. 

On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts paused a federal judge’s order that required the Trump administration to pay around $2 billion in foreign aid funds to contractors by midnight. Smith called the move by Roberts "actually pretty stunning."

"And I think a reasonable interpretation of that would be that the justices, particularly the Chief Justice, is kind of sending a shot across the bow to some of these judges that, 'Look, if you keep this up, we're going to step in and intervene,'" Smith said. 

Yoo said he expects the Trump administration to ultimately prevail on many of the suits launched against him, saying that "he's really, in many ways, following the decisions of the Roberts Court itself about how far executive power goes."

"Now, just because Trump won an election doesn't mean he gets to do whatever he wants — he has to achieve his mandate through constitutional processes, which I think he's doing," Yoo said. 

"He's litigating, he's appearing at the Supreme Court, so he's not ignoring the courts. He's doing what you should do if you're the president and you have the responsibility to execute the law," Yoo continued. 

Fox News Digital's Bradford Betz contributed to this report. 

The Trump administration's lawyers have spent significant time in court this month fighting dozens of requests filed by legal groups, labor organizations and a litany of other state and local plaintiffs across the country – and so far, most judges haven't granted these requests.

The courts "are rightfully saying we don't have jurisdiction over this," or, in certain cases, that plaintiffs "aren't proving harm," Fox News legal editor Kerri Kupec Urbahn, a former spokesperson for Attorney General Bill Barr, said of the numerous legal challenges to Trump's agenda. 

The lawsuits, totaling more than 80, are aimed at blocking or reversing some of Trump's most controversial actions and executive orders. 

Nearly all plaintiffs are seeking, in addition to the long-term injunctive relief, a temporary restraining order, or TRO, from a federal judge that would block the order or policy from taking force until the merits of the case can be heard. 

AG BONDI DISMISSES DEI LAWSUITS BROUGHT AGAINST POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENTS UNDER BIDEN ADMINISTRATION

Almost all these requests for emergency relief have been rejected in court, with judges noting that plaintiffs lacked standing, and ordering both parties to return for a later hearing date to consider the merits of the case.

Some Trump allies and legal commentators have criticized the many lawsuits as a way for plaintiffs to skip over the traditional administrative appeals process and take their case directly to the courts instead – a pattern they say has prompted the wave of rejections by federal judges. 

There is an internal review process for agency-specific actions or directives, which can be challenged via appeals to administrative law judges or an agency-specific court. 

But doing so for executive orders or presidential actions is much more difficult.

According to information from the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, a president’s executive order can be revoked or modified only by the president or via the legislative branch, if the president was acting on authority that had been granted by Congress.

TRUMP STRIPS SECURITY CLEARANCES FROM LAW FIRM TIED TO JACK SMITH CASES

Since the latter is not immediately applicable to the Trump-era orders many of the lawsuits hinge on, that leaves the courts as one of the limited arbiters for determining whether to let stand the orders or action in question. 

That means the requests for injunctive relief are considered in a sort of two-part wave of proceedings, since most – if not all – Trump-era complaints include both the request for the TRO and for the preliminary injunction. 

The TRO requests are the first wave of "mini-arguments" to come before U.S. judges tasked with reviewing the complaints. 

They are heard immediately and require plaintiffs to prove they will suffer irreparable injury or harm if their request for relief is not granted— a difficult burden to satisfy, especially when the order or policy has not yet come into force. 

(As one judge remarked earlier this month, the court cannot grant TRO requests based on speculation.)

The courts then order both parties to re-appear at a later date to consider the request for preliminary injunction, which allows both sides to present a fuller argument and for the court to take into account the harm or damages incurred. 

"The bottom line is that courts typically do not grant requests for emergency relief at the start of a lawsuit," Suzanne Goldberg, a Lawfare contributor and professor at Columbia Law School, wrote in a recent op-ed. 

"Instead, they wait to decide what remedies a plaintiff deserves, if any, until after each side makes its legal arguments and introduces its evidence, including evidence obtained from the other side through the discovery process."

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

These near-term court victories have buoyed Trump allies and the Department of Government Efficiency, allowing DOGE, at least for now, to continue carrying out their ambitious early-days agenda and claiming "victory." 

"LFG," Elon Musk cheered on X recently, in response to a court's rejection of a request from labor unions seeking to block DOGE access to federal agency information.

Other accounts have praised the overwhelming court rejections of emergency restraining orders as evidence that the Trump administration, and DOGE, are "winning" – a characterization that legal experts warn is largely premature.

In fact, they've noted, the slow-moving legal challenges and nature of the court calendar are features, not bugs.

This includes efforts to block or curtail DOGE from accessing internal government information or firing agency employees; lawsuits aimed at blocking the Trump administration's transgender military ban; and complaints seeking to block the release or public identification of FBI personnel involved in Jan. 6 investigations, among many other things.

But that's not because every one of these actions is legitimate. Rather, legal experts say, the near-term "victories" hinge on the limited power a judge has to intervene in proving emergency relief, or granting temporary restraining orders.

JUDGE DENIES DEMOCRAT-LED EFFORT TO BLOCK DOGE ACCESS, CITING LACK OF PROVEN HARM

Judges, including U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, noted previously that fear and speculation alone are not enough to curtail DOGE access: plaintiffs must prove clearly, and with evidence, that their workings have met the hard-to-satisfy test of permanent or "irreparable" harm.

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that plaintiffs must be able to show evidence that a rule, action or policy in question will result in "immediate, irreparable harm" to satisfy a TRO request. 

That's a difficult burden of proof, and a near impossible one for plaintiffs to satisfy, especially for an action that has not yet taken effect. 

DOGE SCORES BIG COURT WIN, ALLOWED ACCESS DATA ON 3 FEDERAL AGENCIES

One exception is the Trump administration's ban on birthright citizenship. 

The request for immediate relief, was granted by multiple U.S. district courts judges, who sided with plaintiffs in ruling that hundreds of children born in the U.S. were at risk of real harm. 

It was also upheld by a U.S. appeals court last week, setting the stage for a possible Supreme Court fight.

But barring that, most of the lawsuits will play out in the longer-term, Goldberg, wrote in the Lawfare op-ed.

"Stepping back, the current litigation landscape of TROs and preliminary injunctions may seem quite extraordinary… But considered in context, these many provisional orders suggest that even more extraordinary are the government’s threatened actions, both in their likely unlawfulness and their potential for irreparable harm," she said.

FIRST ON FOX: CIA Director John Ratcliffe is unconcerned by speculation that agents who are fired under Department of Government Efficiency cuts may take the nation’s secrets to foreign adversaries. 

"Any individual who would be willing to sell the Nation’s secrets to a foreign adversary has no place working at the Agency that plays an incredible role in keeping Americans safe every day," Ratcliffe told Fox News Digital in a statement.

CNN reported on Monday that mass firings and buyouts offered to agents were under discussion among CIA "top leadership," who were apparently worried that losing their jobs might prompt disgruntled former officers to take their classified intelligence to foreign intelligence services like those of China or Russia. 

"You’re telling me that a professional setback could cause people to risk the consequences of treason and betray their country, and your argument is that those are the kind of people who should stay inside CIA?" a source familiar with the CIA head’s thinking added to Fox News Digital. 

"There’s a general sense that it’s more of a justification for maintaining the status quo, but if potential traitors are there, it’s hard to argue the solution is for them to continue maintaining access to the nation’s secrets."

NSA INVESTIGATES 'SECRET SEX CHATS' UNDER GUISE OF DEI ON INTERNAL AGENCY MESSAGE BOARD

"You’re just rolling the dice that these folks are gonna honor their secrecy agreement and not volunteer to a hostile intelligence service," an unnamed U.S. official reportedly told CNN. 

The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently tried to fire 51 employees who worked on diversity issues, and newer employees are potentially on the chopping block to comply with a government-wide effort to root out probationary employees before they earn civil service protection. 

A judge put the diversity firings on pause after agents sued to stop them. Kevin Carroll, an attorney who represents 19 of the CIA officers affected, said his clients were just "regular American intelligence officers" who had been assigned to complete diversity tasks on a rotational basis or in addition to their day jobs. 

"Some of these people are like 18 years in, they're a couple years short of their pensions. So firing them instead of just letting them first look for another job in the agency or elsewhere in the intel community, is a lack of due process," he told Fox News Digital. "These people had regular career paths within the intel community and were slotted into these jobs for a bit. That's all."

JUDGE BLOCKS PARTS OF TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS TARGETING DEI, CITING FREE SPEECH

A judge will determine whether to offer injunctive relief on Thursday. 

The CIA also offered buyouts to employees who offered to resign, in line with a government-wide push to trim the federal workforce, but it’s not clear how many employees were offered and accepted the offer. 

Earlier this month, the agency reportedly sent an unclassified email listing the names of agents, first name and last initial, who had been there less than two years to the White House, prompting concerns those names could fall into the wrong hands. 

Though the exact number of people employed by the CIA is classified, the agency is known to employ thousands who engage in covert collection and analysis of intelligence, both at its Virginia headquarters and overseas.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Foreign adversaries like China and Russia are known to target former U.S. intelligence officials, offering them large sums of money for the classified information they are privy to. The Justice Department has charged multiple former military and intel officials for providing information to China.

The CIA was known for friction with the White House during Trump's first administration but was hit with a wave of retirements in 2021 and 2022 as those who were recruited after the September 11, 2001, attacks hit their 20-year mark. The agency hit a recruiting high point again in 2024. 

FIRST ON FOX: President Donald Trump is expected to sign a memo Tuesday suspending the security clearances for employees of a top D.C.-based law firm who assisted in former special counsel Jack Smith's investigations, Fox News has learned.

The memo, first reported by Fox News, outlines the administration's sweeping plans to suspend security clearances for all counsel members involved in Jack Smith's dual special counsel investigations into Trump, the White House confirmed.

It's the latest in a string of punitive actions Trump has taken to strip power from his political and legal foes. 

The memo orders the federal government to review and terminate the engagement of law firm Covington & Burling by the U.S. government "to the maximum extent permitted by law," and will conduct a detailed evaluation of funding decisions to ensure they with American citizens’ interests and the priorities of this Administration, as detailed in executive directives.

MORE THAN 1 MILLION FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPLIED WITH MUSK'S ‘WHAT DID YOU DO LAST WEEK’ EMAIL: WH

Among those targeted is Peter Koski, the former deputy chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section.  Covington vice chair Lanny Breuer, who helped lead the Justice Department's criminal division under then-President Barack Obama, is also expected to be squarely in the crosshairs of the review. Breuer, for his part, had recruited Smith in 2010 to head up DOJ's Public Integrity Section.

The two made headlines earlier this month after Politico reported they had been offering pro bono legal services to Jack Smith prior to his resignation from the Justice Department last month.

The White House said Tuesday that the firm had offered Smith $140,000 in free legal services.

In revoking the government clearances of top Justice Department personnel, the administration said Trump is "sending a clear message that the Federal Government will no longer tolerate the abuse of power by partisan actors who exploit their positions for political gain."

"The Federal Government will review and terminate engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by the United States to the maximum extent permitted by law," the memo is expected to say, according to a White House official.

Smith was tapped by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to investigate the alleged effort by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as well as Trump's keeping of allegedly classified documents at his Florida residence after leaving the White House. 

He had previously indicted Trump in D.C. on charges stemming from his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. 

Smith also brought federal charges against Trump in Florida for his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House. 

Both cases were dropped after Trump's election, in keeping with a longstanding Justice Department memo that states it is against DOJ policy to investigate a sitting president for federal criminal charges. 

The memo says it is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine to do so.  They have also cited a July Supreme Court decision that widened the criteria for immunity for sitting presidents.

Covington & Burling LLP did not immediately respond to Fox News's request for comment. 

This is a breaking news story. Check back soon for updates.

A Biden-era legal win that allowed the president to fire certain board members set the stage for President Donald Trump to can several people who sat on the Kennedy Center board. 

Former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer – one of the plaintiffs in that case, Spicer v. Biden – told Fox News Digital that, evidently enough, the suit was "about sending a message to the President of the United States."

With Trump under fire for removing multiple Kennedy Center board members earlier this month, Spicer says his loss is Trump's win. 

"The idea was to make sure that the Republican Party in the future had the legal backing to do what President Trump is doing now," Spicer said. 

KENNEDY CENTER SHAKE-UP WILL USHER IN 'GOLDEN AGE OF THE ARTS' UNDER TRUMP, RIC GRENELL PREVIEWS

Upon starting his term in 2021, President Joe Biden attempted to remove Spicer, current director of the Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought and others from their positions on the Board of Visitors for the Naval Academy.

Spicer and Vought were serving statutory terms on the Naval Academy board after being appointed by Trump during his first term. Spicer's term was set to expire in December 2021. 

At the time, he was also serving on the Commission of White House Fellows, to which he submitted his resignation shortly after Biden entered the Oval Office. 

On Sept. 8, 2021, Spicer and Vought received a letter from the White House Presidential Personnel Office, stating, "I am writing to request your resignation from the Board of Visitors to the United States Naval Academy. If we do not receive your resignation by end of day today, you will be terminated," according to the initial complaint. 

TRUMP FIRES KENNEDY CENTER BOARD MEMBERS CITING DRAG SHOWS, APPOINTS HIMSELF CHAIRMAN

Spicer said he would not be resigning. America First Legal, founded by current Trump White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, approached the board members with the proposal to pursue a lawsuit against the Biden administration. 

"This is about sending a message to make the President of the United States go to court and argue that he had the right to fire any of these people," Spicer said. "It was America First Legal that came up with the strategy, and we were the two appointees that agreed to be the example."

Spicer said the suit "was not about getting back on the board," and the irony of it all was that the goal was to lose the case in the courts. 

"The goal was to make sure that a future Republican president had the legal backing to clean house when they came into office and to be able to point to President Biden as the reason," Spicer said. 

The suit was ultimately dismissed by the district court while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in a similar case, Severino v. Biden, that a presidential appointee similar to Spicer and Vought could be removed by the president at will. 

ACTRESS ISSA RAE CANCELS SOLD-OUT KENNEDY CENTER SHOW AFTER TRUMP NAMED CHAIRMAN OF VENUE

"I think it was sort of to acknowledge that, even though it was unprecedented because the Kennedy Center Board had always been bipartisan, there was nothing to prevent Donald Trump from doing exactly that – appointing the trustees whom he wanted, and then having those trustees vote to have him become chairman of the Kennedy Center Board," John Malcolm, vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital.

Since the start of his second term, Trump and his administration have become the targets of over 70 lawsuits over his executive orders and directives, many of which seek to delineate how much power the executive branch truly has. 

On Friday, the Supreme Court paused the Trump administration's efforts to dismiss former head of the Office of Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger, after a lower court reinstated the Biden appointee to his post. 

In its initial appeal to the high court, the Trump administration argued that the judiciary is attempting "to seize executive power" as courts have blocked the president from firing certain federal employees. 

Likewise, just several weeks back, Trump's Justice Department penned a letter to Congress stating that it was seeking to overturn a landmark Supreme Court case in an effort to give the president greater control over independent three-letter agencies.

"The idea would be [that] we have a unitary executive and all that means is in Article II of the Constitution, that vests all executive branch authority in one president," Malcolm said. "And the idea is that if you are an executive branch official, it is implied that the Constitution gives the president the authority to keep those officials or not keep those officials so that if they are not properly implementing executive branch policies, that the buck stops with the president and he can fire people."

Amid the legal pushback toward the Trump agenda, Spicer said, in hindsight, he and AFL "took a page out of [Trump's] book to begin with."

"I think Trump, from the day he came down the escalator at Trump Tower, basically told conservatives, ‘Stop being such wusses and learn to fight back,’" Spicer said. "So, it was Trump in 2015, 2016 that made it clear that conservatives don't have to sit and take it anymore. We can fight back. And that was kind of the notion of this lawsuit."

Among the critics who posted on X Sunday after my Fox News show was one who made an argument that surprised me.

Don’t pay attention to what President DonaldTrump says, this person wrote. Pay attention to what he does.

Now that’s a novel idea. What the president of the United States says is unimportant and should be ignored. I doubt that this person applied the same standard to President Joe Biden.

And yet there’s an interesting thought exercise here. Trump says a lot of things, especially since he talks to journalists at length virtually every day. Not everything rises to the same level of seriousness. I say this as someone who has interviewed him many times over the years, including our sit-down two weeks before the election.

INTERVIEWING DONALD TRUMP: A LAST-MINUTE BLITZ AND NEW CLOSING MESSAGE

Sometimes the president says things just to rile up the press. Sometimes he says things that aren’t true, or are exaggerations or taken out of context.

But more often he says the quiet part out loud, signaling what he plans to do or insulting those with whom he disagrees, the kind of stuff that reporters used to have to attribute to unnamed aides, and he does it in front of the cameras.

At the top of the list right now would be Ukraine. President Trump is a smart guy. He knows that Russia invaded its much smaller sovereign neighbor with the aim of wiping it off the map and putting it under Moscow’s control. But he has chosen to blame Ukraine for starting the war, and to insult Volodomyr Zelenskyy as a dictator when everyone knows that label perfectly describes Vladimir Putin.

The most charitable interpretation is that Trump believes the only way to end the war is through an alliance with Putin for a settlement that could then be sold to Ukraine. (The United States voted with Russia yesterday against a U.N. resolution condemning the invasion.) 

Of course, Trump has cozied up to Putin for a long time. During their Helsinki summit in the first term, the president accepted Putin’s denial that the Kremlin had hacked into Democratic emails, despite the evidence gathered by his own intelligence agencies.

Trump has repeated again and again that Zelenskyy bears responsibility for the war that just marked its three-year anniversary. Is this aimed at the American public or at Moscow or Kyiv (to put pressure on Ukraine)?  

ELON MUSK’S BUDGET-SLASHING HITS POLITICAL REALITY OF SUFFERING AMERICANS

Journalists keep asking Trump aides and Republican supporters if they agree with the president’s blame-Ukraine approach, and many have simply tried to deflect the question.

In my "Media Buzz" interview with Jason Miller, the longtime Trump confidante and senior adviser to the Trump transition team, he deftly avoided contradicting the president.

"What President Trump has done," he said, "is he has forced the sides to the table to actually stop the killing and come up with a peace deal. For the last several years. Joe Biden has sat there completely incompetent, doing nothing but fueling and funding more killing and more death." 

When I tried again, Miller said of his boss that "his legacy really will be as a peacemaker."

I came back a third time, quoting conservative radio host Mark Levin as saying, "This is sick. Ukraine didn't start this war. What were they supposed to do? Roll over and play dead? They're just trying to survive." 

And I asked: "Why is President Trump blaming Zelenskyy for the beginning of the war?"

"Well, Zelenskyy has a lot of blame. I think that would go to this as well. But again, you want to look into the past, I want to look into the future, what we do to save lives." 

Miller was doing his job. A similar scenario played out on the other Sunday shows.

On "Fox News Sunday," my colleague Shannon Bream asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth whether it was fair to say that Russia was unprovoked when it attacked Ukraine. He replied that it was "fair to say it’s a very complicated situation."

DONALD TRUMP’S TOUGH TALK—BUY GREENLAND! TAKE BACK PANAMA CANAL!—SPARKS DEFIANCE FROM MANY REPUBLICAN REBELS

Stressing that Trump wants to end the war, Hegseth said: "‘You’re good, you’re bad; you’re a dictator, you’re not a dictator; you invaded, you didn’t.’ It’s not useful. It’s not productive."

Another part of my Sunday interview also shed light on Trump’s use of language.

The president told reporters: "I think we should govern the District of Columbia, make it absolutely flawlessly beautiful." 

The District has enjoyed home rule for 50 years, although Congress retains the power to overturn its laws. The capital, like most cities, grapples with crime, poverty and other urban ills.

I asked point blank: Is the president ready to end home rule in D.C.?

Miller said Mayor Muriel Bowser is largely doing a good job, adding: "I think part of the reason why President Trump won is because he said he was going to clean up our cities to make them safe. Of course he's going to put pressure on the District of Columbia."

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

So Trump’s words in this instance had a different meaning, as a warning signal to the District.

Oh, I also wondered why Trump keeps referring to Canada as the 51st state when that’s not going to happen.

"The president's having a little bit of fun with it. But he's also making some very serious points."

My online detractor was wrong. It’s important to pay attention to the president’s words, especially for the media, which have a tendency to overreact to some of his language. The challenge is deciphering when he’s dead serious, when he’s sending signals and when he’s just trolling. 

The Trump administration is rescinding a Biden-era directive protecting hospitals from investigations and signaled that beefed-up protections for medical whistleblowers would be forthcoming.

The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) announced Friday it would be rescinding an executive order issued by former President Joe Biden in March 2022, which, among other things, gave hospitals the right not to comply with state-level investigations related to their provision of transgender medical treatments to minors. 
Trump's directive eliminates these protections, and the rescission notice indicates that further safeguards for medical whistleblowers are anticipated in the future.

"Under the Biden regime, the door for whistleblowers was closed," said Dr. Eithan Haim, who was prosecuted by the Biden administration after he leaked documents to the media that revealed Texas Children's Hospital in Houston was performing transgender medical procedures on minors, even after it said it had stopped. "It was a complete inversion of the role of HHS, the role of our legal framework, because the criminal entities were being protected and the individuals exposing criminal entities were now the ones being targeted."

RILEY GAINES FEATURED IN TRUMP HHS WEBSITE THAT BUILDS ON ‘TWO SEXES’ EXECUTIVE ORDER

Haim was indicted last year by Biden's Department of Justice for blowing the whistle on Texas Children's Hospital, after it continued to provide transgender medical treatments to minors even though the hospital had publicly indicated it had stopped such services in order to comply with new state guidance. Several days after President Donald Trump was sworn in, the charges against Haim were dropped. 

Under Biden's March 2022 directive, titled, "HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights and Patient Privacy," hospitals were permitted, but not required, to comply with investigations seeking information on their provision of transgender treatments. But, according to HHS's rescission notice, such guidance lacked "adequate legal basis under federal privacy laws." The notice added that, "by its own terms," Biden's March 2022 directive "permits" the release of personal health information tied to transgender procedures when it is needed to comply with other laws. 

TRANS STAR OF HIT HBO SERIES SAYS RENEWED PASSPORT NOW SAYS MALE AFTER TRUMP ORDER

"Covered entities should no longer rely on the rescinded 2022 OCR Notice and Guidance," stated HHS' rescission notice. It added that "in consultation with the Attorney General" the agency will also be "expeditiously" issuing new guidance to protect whistleblowers who take action in accordance with Trump's efforts to protect children "from chemical and surgical mutilation." 

Haim said that under Trump's new leadership, the U.S. legal system is being restored "to a place of equal protection under law, particularly as it relates to people who are trying to follow [Trump's] executive order, or any other federal laws."

"The key thing with this new directive is that, as a healthcare provider, if a hospital or other doctors are participating in misconduct, if they're lying about something, if they are intervening on patients in a way that is harmful to those patients – especially kids – as a doctor, it's not only something you should do, it's something you have to do," Haim pointed out.

In addition to compelling hospitals and gender clinics to begin rigorous compliance with investigations, the Trump administration's Friday directive also removed gender dysphoria from being considered a disability under the federal Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also rescinded orders from the Biden administration indicating it was discrimination for federally funded health programs to refuse to treat someone on the basis of their gender identity.

Fox News Digital reached out to HHS for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Saber Interactive's been conscripted to bring their magic on Warhammer 40K: Space Marine II to make a game out of a major Hasbro brand.

Hunter Schafer, a transgender actor and star of the HBO series "Euphoria," revealed that her new passport was issued with a male gender marker because of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

Schafer, 26, posted a video on social media detailing how her passport had been stolen while she was filming in Spain. After receiving an emergency passport, she later had to apply for a new, permanent one in Los Angeles. Schafer, who transitioned to female when she was a teenager, said her original passport identified her as female, but the new one she received marked her as male.

Schafer said she wasn’t posting the video to "create drama," "fearmonger" or "receive consolation," but rather because she thought it was worth noting "the reality of the situation and that it is actually happening."

"Trans people are beautiful. We are never going to stop existing. I’m never gonna stop being trans," she said in the video. "A letter and a passport can’t change that. And f--- this administration."

DHS SUSPENDS APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS WITH ‘X’ GENDER MARKER

Trump signed the executive order, "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government," on his first day in office. The order mandates the federal government to recognize only two sexes — male and female — based on immutable biological characteristics, which must be reflected on official documents, like passports.

The State Department, responsible for passports, is no longer issuing passports with the "X" marker that’s been available since 2021 and is not honoring requests to change gender markers between "M" and "F."

Schafer acknowledged the executive order in her TikTok video: "Because our president, you know, is a lot of talk, I was like, ‘I’ll believe it when I see it.’ And, today, I saw it," Schafer said, holding up her new passport page with the "M" marker. 

MAINE GOVERNOR'S TRANSGENDER ATHLETE DUSTUP WITH TRUMP MADE WHITE HOUSE CONFAB ‘UNCOMFORTABLE,’ GOVERNORS SAY

The 26-year-old said she has had female gender markers on her license and passport since she was a teenager, though she noted that she did not have her birth certificate amended.

"It doesn’t really change anything about me or my transness. However, it does make my life a little harder," Schafer said in the video, saying she has to travel for the first time with the new passport next week.

"Trans people are beautiful. We are never going to stop existing. I’m never going to stop being trans. A letter and a passport can’t change that," she concluded.

Seven people represented by the American Civil Liberties Union have already filed a lawsuit claiming the policy violates privacy and First Amendment rights. 

The ACLU has said it has been contacted by more than 1,500 transgender people or family members, "many with passport applications suspended or pending, who are concerned about being able to get passports that accurately reflect their identity."

Fox News Digital’s Louis Casiano and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Nearly everyone agrees that the federal government has become this bloated monster that needs to be cut down to size.

The massive bureaucracy, attacked by some as evil, is absurdly overstaffed and wastes massive amounts of money.

What President Trump is doing in trying to shrink the size of government is popular – even if his billionaire budget-slasher, Elon Musk, is not – and many of the court battles are likely to be resolved in his favor.

But the equation is turned on its head when actual people feel the impact. And the media start highlighting sad cases of devastated folks. And Republican lawmakers start objecting to the cutbacks that hit home.

WHAT HAS DOGE CUT SO FAR?

That’s why it’s so hard to cut the federal budget. It’s not like going into SpaceX and firing a bunch of software engineers. The political pressures can be intense.

Virtually every program in the federal budget is there because some group, at some time, convinced Congress it was a good idea. There are noble-sounding causes – cancer research, aid to veterans, subsidies for farmers.

In fact, farmers are threatened by the near-abolition of USAID – while most people hate foreign aid, food programs provide a crucial market for American farmers, many of whom are now stuck with spoiling surpluses or loans they can’t repay.

Now there’s plenty of game-playing that goes on with government programs. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that agencies could cut one of every 10 employees without damaging their core functions. 

Anyone who’s looked at the endless cycle of conferences, conventions, training confabs, office renovations and the like knows how much fat there is in these budgets. When you throw in lucrative payments to well-connected contractors, that figure skyrockets.

But when agency officials come under fire, they immediately insist that any cutbacks will instantly hurt the poor and downtrodden, or working-class folks living paycheck to paycheck. It used to be called the Washington Monument defense, the notion that any attempt to reduce funding for the Interior Department would cause the memorial’s immediate shutdown.

DOGE SAYS IT FOUND NEARLY UNTRACEABLE BUDGET LINE ITEM RESPONSIBLE FOR $4.7T IN PAYMENTS

NIH, for instance, does world-class research that benefits the country. But the battle between Musk’s DOGE and the institute centers on how much is spent on indirect costs.

Musk says his aim is "dropping the overhead charged on NIH grants from the outrageous 60 percent to a far more reasonable 15 percent."

But an NBC story is headlined: "NIH Cuts Could Stall Medical Progress for Lifesaving Treatments, Experts Say."

The piece quotes Theodore Iwashyna, a physician at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, as saying his "father had pancreatic cancer, and the care plan developed for him existed only because of research funded through organizations like the NIH."

Iwashyna says the overhead is needed for "computers, whiteboards, microscopes, electricity, and janitors and staff who keep labs clean and organized."

Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, whose state is getting $518 million in NIH grants, mainly to the University of Alabama at Birmingham, is raising objections. The conservative Republican told a reporter she wants the administration to take a "smart, targeted approach" so as not to endanger "groundbreaking, lifesaving research."

DOGE NEEDS TO 'CUT DEEPER' AND MUST ‘KEEP SLASHING’ TO SUCCEED, SAYS KEVIN O’LEARY

The examples are legion. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski has asked the administration not to restrict funding for diversity programs among American Indian tribes.

As the New York Times puts it, "some Republicans" have sought "carve outs and special consideration for agriculture programs, scientific research and more, even as they cheered on Mr. Trump’s overall approach."

Musk’s DOGE team seems to be using a meat-ax method. Why lay off hundreds of FAA technicians and engineers just weeks after the fatal plane crash at Reagan National Airport, when there’s already a major shortage of air traffic controllers?

FEMA, which is already stretched thin after the Los Angeles wildfires and the Kentucky flooding, is preparing to fire hundreds of probationary workers, reports the Washington Post. Such workers, who have been with the government for one or two years, basically have no rights. 

But there has been zero effort to assess them. Some were told their performance was the issue, but showed the Post their evaluations. "Above fully successful," said one, for a fired GSA worker. "An outstanding year, consistently exceeding expectations," said the review for a fired NIH staffer.

But viewed from a different angle, the hometown paper and other outlets buy into the notion that federal employees should have tenure for life. Everyone in Washington knows that before Trump it was virtually impossible to fire such employees, even for cause. 

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

By contrast, Southwest Airlines just announced a 15% cut of its corporate workforce. No one is rushing to interview those laid off, because this sort of downsizing is routine in the private sector. But the Beltway ethos is that federal workers are entitled to their jobs.

Now intellectual honesty requires the observation that even radical cuts to the federal payroll won’t have much impact on the $840 billion budget deficit or the $36 trillion federal debt. The bulk of the budget consists of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and interest on the debt.

Can Elon Musk and DOGE at least make progress on rooting out waste, fraud and abuse? Maybe. But the level of pain being inflicted on ordinary Americans, including in red states, and the natural tendency of politicians to shield local residents from that pain, and the media’s relentless spotlight on those suffering, are going to be a giant obstacle.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to expand access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other fertility treatments through the reduction of out-of-pocket costs.

IVF has become unaffordable for many Americans, and Trump’s executive order directs the Domestic Policy Council to find ways to make IVF and other fertility treatments more affordable.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted about the order shortly after it was signed.

"PROMISES MADE. PROMISES KEPT: President Trump just signed an Executive Order to Expand Access to IVF!" she wrote on X. "The Order directs policy recommendations to protect IVF access and aggressively reduce out-of-pocket and health plan costs for such treatments."

JUDGE DENIES DEMOCRAT-LED EFFORT TO BLOCK DOGE ACCESS, CITING LACK OF PROVEN HARM

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., expressed gratitude on X after learning the president had expanded access to IVF.

"Thank you, @POTUS! Yet another promise kept," Britt wrote. "IVF is profoundly pro-family, and I’m proud to work with President Trump on ensuring more loving parents can start and grow their families."

DOGE SCORES BIG COURT WIN, ALLOWED ACCESS DATA ON 3 FEDERAL AGENCIES

Trump pledged on the campaign trail that if he won a second term, he would mandate free in vitro fertilization treatment for women.

"I'm announcing today in a major statement that under the Trump administration, your government will pay for — or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for — all costs associated with IVF treatment," Trump told the crowd at Alro Steel in Potterville, Michigan,  back in August. "Because we want more babies, to put it nicely."

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

IVF treatments are notoriously expensive and can cost tens of thousands of dollars for a single round. Many women require multiple rounds, and there is no guarantee of success.

Trump’s announcement, which was short on details, came after he faced intense scrutiny from Democrats for his role in appointing Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, sending the issue of abortion back to the states. 

Trump has tried to present himself as moderate on the issue, going as far as declaring himself "very strong on women's reproductive rights."

Fox News Digital’s Bradford Betz contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump's Department of Justice is seeking to overturn a landmark Supreme Court case in an effort to give the president greater control over independent three-letter agencies.

In a move that could allow Trump to more easily fire officials who refuse to implement his policies, the acting U.S. solicitor general sent Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin a letter on Wednesday, notifying him of the Justice Department's plans to ask the Supreme Court to overturn a key precedent that limits the president's power to remove independent agency members. 

The letter, penned by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, says the DOJ has determined "that certain for-cause removal provisions" that apply to certain administrative agency members are unconstitutional, and the department would "no longer defend their constitutionality."

TRUMP'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ORDER TO DROP CHARGES AGAINST NYC MAYOR ERIC ADAMS SPARKS RESIGNATIONS

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the case in question, is a 1935 Supreme Court case that narrowed the president's constitutional power to remove agents of the executive branch. 

Harris cited a previous case, Myers v. United States, which held that the Constitution granted the president sole power to remove executive branch officials. 

"The exception recognized in Humphrey's Executor thus does not fit the principal officers who head the regulatory commissions noted above," Harris wrote in the letter. 

"To the extent that Humphrey's Executor requires otherwise, the Department intends to urge the Supreme Court to overrule that decision, which prevents the President from adequately supervising principal officers in the Executive Branch who execute the laws on the President's behalf, and which has already been severely eroded by recent Supreme Court decisions," Harris continued. 

Durbin called the letter a "striking reversal of the Justice Department’s longstanding position under Republican and Democratic presidents alike," in a statement to Fox News Digital. He added that the request is "not surprising from an administration that is only looking out for wealthy special interests – not the American people." 

BONDI ANNOUNCES NEW LAWSUITS AGAINST STATES ALLEGEDLY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH IMMIGRATION ACTIONS: ‘A NEW DOJ’

However, conservative legal theorists supported the Trump administration's move, arguing that overturning Humphrey's Executor would move the federal government closer to the original intent of the Constitution's framers. Trump notably posed his presidential campaign against former President Joe Biden as a contest between the "deep state" and democracy, saying at the time, "Either we have a deep state or we have a democracy. We're going to have one or the other. And we're right at the tipping point."

"Congress makes the laws, it's the president's duty to carry out and enforce those laws under the unitary executive theory," Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. "That means that the president, since he's the head of the executive branch, has complete control over the executive branch, and that includes the hiring and firing of everyone in the executive branch, most particularly, and most importantly, the heads of all the different offices and departments within the executive branch."

Von Spakovsky says the exception carved out by the Court in Humphrey's Executor "does not apply to these federal agencies." In her letter, Harris specifically mentioned the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 

Earlier this month, a former NLRB member sued Trump over her termination, arguing that federal law protects her from being arbitrarily dismissed. The Trump administration has also become the target of various other lawsuits involving federal employee dismissals. 

PATEL CAMP DECRIES DURBIN ACCUSATIONS AS ‘POLITICALLY MOTIVATED’ ATTEMPT TO DERAIL FBI CONFIRMATION

"My take on what's going on with the Trump agenda right now is that they're itching to get up to the higher federal court level, including the Supreme Court, to press just this kind of question," Ronald Pestritto, Graduate Dean and Professor of Politics at Hillsdale College, told Fox News Digital. 

Pestritto says some of the administration's actions "contradict existing civil service law, existing protections, for example, against removing the NLRB commissioners."

"And so, clearly, they know they're going to lose a lot of that at the lower court level. And they want to push them up into the Supreme Court, because they think they might get a reconsideration of it," Pestritto said. 

Von Spakovsky stated that independent agencies are "unaccountable" as a result of Humphrey's Executor, saying "you make them accountable to voters by putting them back where they belong, which is under the authority of the president."

Trump's lawyers are likely to lose in the lower court, Pestritto says, where he expects judges to apply the Supreme Court's precedent in their own decisions. But even so, the Trump administration can appeal higher and higher to attempt to get Supreme Court review, where Humphrey's Executor could be overturned. 

"[Democrats] are going to win injunctions very often, first of all, because they know it's easy to judge-shop for sympathetic district judges. And number two, the district judges are basically going to go by the existing Supreme Court precedent," Pestritto said. "And so the real tale of the tape will be when these initial rulings get appealed up the appellate ladder and ultimately up to the Supreme Court, which certainly has many justices who I think understand Article II of the Constitution properly and may be open to a reconsideration of Humphrey’s."

Blue state attorneys general accused Vice President JD Vance of attempting to spread a "dangerous lie" after he criticized judges blocking President Donald Trump's agenda. 

"The Vice President’s statement is as wrong as it is reckless. As chief law enforcement officers representing the people of 17 states, we unequivocally reject the Vice President’s attempt to spread this dangerous lie," the statement reads. 

Seventeen state attorneys general, including those from California, Connecticut, Arizona, Massachusetts and Washington, signed the statement released Friday after Vance sent the internet into a frenzy, saying, "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."

AG PAM BONDI VOWS TO ‘FIGHT BACK’ AGAINST JUDGES BLOCKING TRUMP’S ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENDA

"Americans understand the principle of checks and balances," the AGs wrote. "The judiciary is a check on unlawful action by the executive and legislative branches of government. Generals, prosecutors, and all public officials are subject to checks and balances. No one is above the law." 

Vance's comments were made after a court blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing personal data. The Trump administration has become the target of more than 50 lawsuits since Trump began his second term in mid-January. Judges in various states across the country, including Washington, Rhode Island and New York, have continuously blocked the administration's efforts to implement its agenda. 

"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal," Vance posted on X. "If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."

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

The statement from the AGs said that they would "carefully scrutinize each and every action taken by this administration." They also made clear that if the administration violated the Constitution or federal law, they would "not hesitate to act."

"Judges granted our motions and issued restraining orders to protect the American people, democracy, and the rule of law. That is and has always been their job," the AGs wrote. "That job is the very core of our legal system. And in this critical moment, we will stand our ground to defend it." 

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently pledged her support for Trump's efforts, vowing to challenge "unelected" judges obstructing his administration’s agenda.

"We have so many un-elected judges who are trying to control government spending. And there is a clear separation of powers," Bondi said during an appearance on "America's Newsroom." "What they're doing to [DOGE leader Elon Musk], to our country, is outrageous. You know, people work their whole lives and pay taxes, yet they find out that they've been giving $2 million to Guatemala for sex changes. It's outrageous. And it's going to stop."

6 TIMES JUDGES BLOCKED TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Since Inauguration Day, dozens of activist and legal groups, elected officials and local jurisdictions, as well as individuals, have launched a myriad of lawsuits in response to the president's executive orders and directives. Notably, Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, his immigration policies, directives on federal funding, and the implementation of DOGE have all come under fire. 

The Trump administration has proceeded to appeal many of these rulings to the appellate courts. In a recent development, the Trump administration appealed an order from a Rhode Island judge to unfreeze federal funds. The order claimed the administration did not adhere to a previous order to do so. 

The Trump administration appealed the order to the First Circuit shortly thereafter, which was ultimately denied.  

Upon Trump's historic win in November, Democratic AGs, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, publicly said they would be ready to engage in any legal battles against the Trump administration for actions they view as illegal or negatively impacting residents. 

Fox News Digital's Emma Colton contributed to this report. 

GOP state attorneys are taking on a renewed role during President Donald Trump's second administration as "freedom's front line," Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) incoming executive director Adam Piper told Fox News Digital, arguing that Democrats – deflated from losing control of both houses of Congress – are turning to left-leaning state attorneys to "undermine" the White House's America First agenda.

Right now, there are 29 Republican attorneys general in the United States who are "uniquely qualified to be the tip of the spear, to be freedom's front line and be a foundation for the future and a foundation for freedom every single day," Piper told Fox News Digital. "These men and women are working tirelessly to ensure their states are the safest places possible. But they're also working tirelessly to defend freedom, to help President Trump to ensure the American people have the system of government they voted for, they expect, and they deserve one that is free and one that is fair." 

In Trump's first three weeks in office, Democratic attorneys general have sued the Trump administration on several matters related to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). That includes New York Attorney General Letitia James leading 19 state attorneys in suing over DOGE leader Elon Musk's access to Treasury Department records. U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued a preliminary injunction in that case Saturday. 

TRUMP HAS HIGHER APPROVAL RATING THAN AT ANY POINT DURING FIRST TERM: POLL

Democratic attorneys general also partnered with the country's largest federal labor unions to sue over Trump's deferred resignation offer that would allow workers eight months of paid leave if they agree to leave their jobs voluntarily. 

In turn, Montana's Republican attorney general, Austin Knudsen, led 22 states in an amicus brief Sunday asking the court to deny a motion for a temporary restraining order and allow Trump to manage the federal workforce how he sees fit. U.S. District Judge George O'Toole in Boston federal court on Monday proceeded to push back the deadline a second time on Trump's "Fork in the Road Directive," which gives most federal employees the option to resign with pay and benefits until Sept. 30. 

"During the Biden administration, Republican AGs were the last line of defense. We were the goal line stand, keeping the equivalent of a ‘tush push’ out of the end zone," Piper told Fox News Digital. 

"During the Trump administration, we have to play offense, defense and special teams," he continued. "We have to be freedom's front line. Working with the administration to ensure this DOGE regulatory reform agenda gets done, that we return to America's Golden Age. But we also have to play defense and special teams. You're going to see Democratic AGs take our playbook, bastardize it, and push back on the Trump administration. You will see states like New York and California get more aggressive, and Republican AGs are there to defend the rule of law, to promote freedom, and to ensure we work with President Trump to return America's Golden Age." 

As for the DOGE injunction led by James, Piper said it equates to "partisan gamesmanship from Democratic attorneys general who want to do everything possible to thwart President Trump's agenda." 

"This is why Republican attorneys general are so critical to the success of the Trump administration in pushing back against Democratic attorneys general and their attempts to crowbar what President Trump and his team are trying to accomplish in Washington, D.C., which is returning freedom to the American people, returning government efficiency, eliminating fraud, waste and abuse," he said. 

REPUBLICAN AGS BACK TRUMP FEDERAL EMPLOYEE BUYOUT AS JUDGE DECIDES 'FORK IN THE ROAD' DIRECTIVE'S FATE

Regarding James, in particular, Piper noted how New York's attorney general led cases against Trump during his 2024 re-election campaign that are now defunct and have failed. 

"A lot of her push back on the Trump administration is more about political theater than it is the rule of law in a court of law," he said. "And today and moving forward, you will see Republican attorneys general being President Trump's best friend from a policy standpoint. We will be his best champion from a policy standpoint. There's no more effective elected official in the United States than the state attorney general. We're more effective than the members of Congress, more effective than U.S. senators, more effective than even governors… You know, we can push back on some of this lawfare that you'll see from Democratic attorneys general." 

The Republican Attorneys General Association has seen alumni advance to the federal level in the Department of Justice. Most notably, that includes the newly sworn-in U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. Piper said he also hopes to see the Senate confirm Aaron Rice, an alum of the Texas Attorney General's Office, to join the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy. He noted 51 Republican attorneys general or staff alumni held Senate confirmed positions in the first Trump administration.

"Republican attorneys general and their staffs are truly America's farm team. You know where the best incubator of talent to ensuring President Trump has known conservative fighters who are willing to fight every day for the American people," Piper said. "And from Attorney General Bondi. There's no better person to be the attorney general of the United States of America." 

As RAGA looks ahead, Virginia Attorney General Jason Myares is defending his office this year in what's expected to be a competitive race, and then 30 attorneys general races will be on the ballot in 2026. 

"There's an urban myth that Richmond goes the opposite way of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We are going to make sure that myth is just an urban myth and just a fable. Attorney General Jason Myers is truly one of our best when you look at the issues across the board. We will have probably an uphill battle," Piper said. "Virginia is a state the Republicans carried by two points four years ago. We have to have a good ground game. We have to have a good turnout operation… We have to make sure voters in the Commonwealth of Virginia understand the importance of attorney general, understand the public safety issues and understand that they need someone who every day will ensure Virginia is the safest place to live, work and raise a family."

The Department of Veterans Affairs canceled $178,000 in subscriptions to Politico Pro, VA Secretary Doug Collins announced Monday.

Collins announced the move on X, saying his office had only recently become aware of the contract. The cancelation comes after President Donald Trump's administration revealed that the federal government had paid over $8 million to Politico in subscription fees in recent years.

"Ran across a $178,000 contract VA had with Politico and we promptly canceled it. That money can be better spent on Veterans health care!" Collins wrote.

EX-POLITICO REPORTERS REVEAL EDITORS QUASHED, SLOW-WALKED NEGATIVE BIDEN STORIES 'WITH NO EXPLANATION'

"It’s a new day at VA," Collins told Fox News Digital. "We’re putting Veterans at the center of everything the department does, focusing relentlessly on customer service and convenience. We’re working every day to find new and better ways of helping VA beneficiaries. That means cutting wasteful spending and redirecting resources toward programs that benefit Veterans, families, survivors and caregivers."

TOP DEM STRATEGISTS WARN USAID FUNDING FIGHT IS A ‘TRAP’ FOR THE PARTY

The move comes after Politico denied claims that it was a "beneficiary of government programs" last week upon revelations of millions of dollars worth of contracts with federal agencies.

"As surely many of you saw today, there was a spirited discussion at the White House and among officials connected to the Department of Government Efficiency on the subject of government subscriptions for journalism products, at POLITICO and other news organizations," Politico's CEO Goli Sheikholeslami and editor-in-chief John Harris jointly wrote to staff on Wednesday in a memo obtained by Fox News Digital. 

"This is a fine conversation to have, and we welcome it. The value of POLITICO subscriptions is validated daily in the marketplace. Some parts of today’s conversation, however, were confusing and left some people with false understandings. For this reason, we want you to hear from us on several points."

Sheikholeslami and Harris stressed Politico "has never been a beneficiary of government programs or subsidies—not one cent, ever, in 18 years" and touted that its subscription service Politico Pro "provides both private and public sector clients with granular, fact-based reporting, real-time intelligence, and tracking tools across key policy areas."

There was speculation on social media that the $8 million in question all came from USAID, the agency currently being targeted by DOGE co-founder Elon Musk, but only $44,000 of it came from that agency. Base subscriptions are typically between $12,000 and $15,000 for three users.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Politico received taxpayer funding for its costly subscription service from elsewhere in the federal government. The Department of Health and Human Services led the way, with $1.37 million followed by $1.35 million from the Department of the Interior, according to USAspending.gov.

The Department of Energy paid Politico $1.29 million, the Department of Agriculture paid $552,024 and the Department of Commerce paid $485,572.

Fox News' Brian Flood contributed to this report

Billionaire Elon Musk outlined a list of "super obvious" changes that his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) plans to make at the U.S. Treasury Department this weekend.

Musk says officials at the treasury are working to make the government's books more simple to audit, as well as more accountability for where funds are going. The changes also require treasury employees to more frequently update the congressional "do not pay" list, which highlights fraudsters and illegal fronts.

"Nobody in Treasury management cared enough before. I do want to credit the working level people in Treasury who have wanted to do this for many years, but have been stopped by prior management," Musk said.

"Everything at Treasury was geared towards complain[t] minimization. People [who] receive money don’t complain, but people who don’t receive money (especially fraudsters) complain very loudly, so the fraud was allowed to continue," he added.

USAID HAS 'DEMONSTRATED PATTERN OF OBSTRUCTIONISM,' CLAIMS TOP DOGE REPUBLICAN IN LETTER TO RUBIO

"The above super obvious and necessary changes are being implemented by existing, long-time career government employees, not anyone from DOGE," Musk added.

"It is ridiculous that these changes didn’t exist already! Yesterday, I was told that there are currently over $100B/year of entitlements payments to individuals with no SSN or even a temporary ID number," he continued. "If accurate, this is extremely suspicious. When I asked if anyone at Treasury had a rough guess for what percentage of that number is unequivocal and obvious fraud, the consensus in the room was about half, so $50B/year or $1B/week!! This is utterly insane and must be addressed immediately."

ELON MUSK'S DOGE MAKES ANOTHER HIRING PUSH

Musk's tirade toward the treasury department comes just after a federal judge blocked DOGE's ability to access treasury department systems. The Tesla CEO condemned the ruling as "insane" this weekend.

'VIPER'S NEST': USAID ACCUSED OF CORRUPTION, MISMANAGEMENT LONG BEFORE TRUMP ADMIN TOOK AIM

The Friday lawsuit, which was filed by 19 Democratic attorneys general, claimed Musk’s team violated the law by being given "full access" to the Treasury’s payment systems. The systems include information about Americans’ Social Security, Medicare and veterans’ benefits, tax refund information and more.

The lawsuit was filed in New York by the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who wrote that President Donald Trump "does not have the power to give away Americans’ private information to anyone he chooses, and he cannot cut federal payments approved by Congress."

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has expressed support for Musk and DOGE in the past, recently saying that the U.S. "doesn't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem."

"At the Treasury, our payment system is not being touched," Bessent said in a "Kudlow" interview on Wednesday. "We process 1.3 billion payments a year. There is a study being done — can we have more accountability, more accuracy, more traceability that the money is going where it is?"

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker has taken a satirical jab at President Donald Trump’s effort to rename the Gulf of Mexico and annex Greenland. 

A straight-faced Pritzker released a choreographed video on Friday, with fake camera shutter clicks going off in the background, where he asserts that he is renaming Lake Michigan to "Lake Illinois," poking fun at Trump’s recent executive order where he changed the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America.

PRITZKER BASHES TRUMP ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: 'WE WILL NOT FOLLOW AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER'

"The world's finest geographers, experts who study the Earth's natural environment, have concluded a decades-long council and determined that a great lake deserves to be named after a great state," Pritzker said. 

"So today, I'm issuing a proclamation declaring that hereinafter, Lake Michigan shall be known as Lake Illinois. The proclamation has been forwarded to Google to ensure the world's maps reflect this momentous change."

Trump signed Executive Order 14172 on his first day back in office which changed the name of the ocean basin. The order also renamed the highest peak in North America to "Mount McKinley," reversing the 2015 decision to call it by its centuries-old name Denali.

Google has said it will make Trump’s changes once the Department of the Interior updates the Geographic Names Information System. As of today, Google Maps still refers to it as the Gulf of Mexico.

In the video, Pritzker then switches his attention to Green Bay, a Wisconsin city near Lake Michigan. And just like how Trump vowed to take over Greenland from Denmark, Pritzker pledged to snap up Green Bay from The Badger State.  

"In addition, the recent announcement that to protect the homeland, the United States will be purchasing Greenland... Illinois will now be annexing Green Bay to protect itself against enemies, foreign and domestic," Pritzker said. 

TRUDEAU SAYS TRUMP IS SERIOUS ABOUT CANADA BECOMING 51ST STATE: REPORTS

"I've also instructed my team to work diligently to prepare for an important announcement next week regarding the Mississippi River."

"God bless America and bear down," Pritzker said, a nod to Wisconsin’s Green Bay Packers, one of Chicago Bears' biggest rivals.

The video comes on the heels of a Justice Department lawsuit filed against the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago for allegedly interfering with federal immigration enforcement with its sanctuary polices.

The lawsuit claims that several state and local laws are designed to interfere with the federal government's enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Pritzker and Trump have also clashed over Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, with Pritzker declaring the move unconstitutional. 

Trump's order, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," asserts that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution does not automatically confer American citizenship to individuals who are born within the United States. 

They also feuded during Trump’s first term in office when Pritzker claimed the state only recovered a quarter of its requested personal protective equipment from the federal government.