Donald Trump is furious. He can’t believe what’s being done to him.

As the Deep State takes Trump to court in yet another major legal battle.

Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook launched a legal challenge against President Donald Trump on Thursday, filing a lawsuit in Washington, DC’s federal district court to block what her attorneys call an “unprecedented and illegal” attempt to remove her from her position.

The dispute centers on allegations of mortgage fraud, which Cook’s legal team argues are baseless and insufficient to justify her dismissal. The lawsuit seeks to ensure she remains in her role while the case unfolds.

Cook, whose term on the Federal Reserve Board runs until 2038, has tapped high-profile attorney Abbe Lowell, known for representing Hunter Biden, to lead her defense. In the filing, Lowell’s team contends that Trump’s move to fire Cook violates the Federal Reserve Act, which requires a clear showing of “cause” for a governor’s removal.

They argue that unverified claims about Cook’s mortgage applications, made before her Senate confirmation, do not meet this threshold.

“It is clear from the circumstances surrounding Governor Cook’s purported removal from the Federal Reserve Board that the mortgage allegations against her are pretextual, in order to effectuate her prompt removal and vacate a seat for President Trump to fill and forward his agenda to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve,” the lawsuit asserts.

Federal law stipulates that removing a governor like Cook—who earns $225,700 annually and has not been charged of a crime—requires evidence of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Her attorneys also claim that Trump’s public announcement of her termination on Truth Social Monday evening violated her Fifth Amendment due process rights, as she was given no prior notice.

The allegations against Cook originated from Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, who posted on X on August 20, claiming she falsified bank documents and property records to obtain better loan terms.

Pulte pointed to a July 2021 instance where Cook allegedly listed an Atlanta condo as her primary residence, just weeks after declaring a Michigan home as her primary residence for another loan. These claims led to a criminal referral to Attorney General Pam Bondi, though no charges have followed.

White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the president’s decision, telling the New York Post that Trump “exercised his lawful authority to remove a governor on the Federal Board of Governors for cause.”

Desai argued that the allegations of falsified financial documents warranted Cook’s removal, enhancing the Federal Reserve’s “accountability and credibility for both the markets and American people.”

Trump has echoed this stance, citing the Federal Reserve Act’s provision for removing governors “for cause.” In a letter to Cook, he wrote that the allegations, “at a minimum,” call into question her “competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.”

The president has repeatedly criticized the Federal Reserve, targeting Chairman Jerome Powell—whom he has dubbed “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell”—for resisting calls to lower interest rates.

Trump has also taken aim at the Fed’s $2.5 billion headquarters renovation in Washington, DC, even visiting the site earlier this summer, hard hat in hand. Powell’s term is set to end in May of next year.

Cook, a former academic who served on President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers and President Joe Biden’s transition team, was confirmed to the Federal Reserve in May 2022 after a tie-breaking Senate vote by then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

In September 2023, she secured a full 14-year term in a 51-47 Senate vote, with South Dakota’s Sen. Mike Rounds as the only Republican in support.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Trump administration has only just begun with its immigration crackdown. It’s about to get hotter than ever.

Because President Trump sent a notice to a Chicago military base that has D.C. panicking.

The Trump administration is gearing up for major immigration enforcement in Chicago, tapping into military resources to support the operation. The Department of Homeland Security has reached out to Naval Station Great Lakes, located about 35 miles north of the city, seeking basic logistical aid for upcoming ICE raids aimed at rooting out dangerous offenders.

“President Trump has been clear: we are going to make our streets and cities safe again,” a senior DHS official told the Daily Caller News Foundation, confirming the push to target threats lurking in urban areas.

The official emphasized the focus on high-priority removals, adding, “Across the country, DHS law enforcement are arresting and removing the worst of worst including gang members, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists that have terrorized American communities.”

Continuing the defense of the strategy, the source stated, “Under Secretary Noem, ICE and CBP [Customs and Border Protection] are working overtime to deliver on the American people’s mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens and make America safe again.”

Base officials described the ask as modest, with spokesperson Matt Mogle noting DHS wanted “limited support in the form of facilities, infrastructure, and other logistical needs to support DHS operations,” according to reports.

When pressed further, Mogle directed inquiries back to DHS, signaling a tight-lipped approach to operational details amid the escalating crackdown. An internal email from Navy Captain Stephen Yargosz, obtained by local media, revealed plans to house ICE agents and other federal personnel at the base from September 2 through 30.

“These operations are similar to what occurred in Los Angeles earlier this summer. Same DHS team,” Yargosz wrote to his team, highlighting continuity in the administration’s nationwide sweep.

He added a note of emerging developments: “This morning I received a call that there is the potential to also support National Guard units. Not many details on this right now. Mainly a lot of concerns and questions.”

This Chicago initiative builds on President Trump’s proven track record of prioritizing border security and interior enforcement, starting with executive orders on his first day back in office to declare an invasion at the southern border and mobilize resources against it.

In Washington, D.C., the president’s federal takeover has delivered real results, slashing crime by 21% compared to the same period in 2024 and a staggering 33% drop from 2023, according to police data analysis. Out west, DHS marked a milestone with the 5,000th arrest of an illegal migrant in Los Angeles since intensified operations kicked off in June, proving the effectiveness of Trump’s no-nonsense approach.

Yet, in the face of these victories, Chicago’s Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson is throwing up roadblocks, whining about federal help as if coddling criminals is the path to safety.

“Our nation has already tried over-policing and incarcerating our way to safety, and that is how we ended up with the largest prison population in the world without solving our challenges with crime and violence,” Johnson declared in a press release, ignoring the chaos his soft-on-crime policies have unleashed.

He doubled down, urging, “I urge our federal government to listen to the advocates, experts, and Chicagoans who are calling for resources that stop the endless flow of guns in our city as well as transformational investments in housing, education, mental health, and community safety,” a typical liberal dodge from addressing the real invasion threat.

Trump’s agenda has already transformed immigration enforcement, reinstating the use of accurate terms like “illegal alien” in official documents to cut through the political correctness that hampered past efforts.

Early actions included suspending the entry of all undocumented migrants and launching mass deportation drives, focusing first on those with criminal records but expanding to restore order across the board.

Border encounters have plummeted sharply under Trump’s directives, with DHS reporting swift progress in securing the frontier and deporting threats that Biden’s open policies allowed to flood in.

These measures, drawn from promises like those in Project 2025, aim to overhaul the system by prioritizing American safety over endless catch-and-release games.

In states like Texas and California, the crackdown has rippled through industries reliant on cheap illegal labor, but it’s a necessary step to protect American workers and wages from unfair competition.

Critics whine about economic fallout, but Trump’s team counters that true security means ending the free ride for those breaking our laws, with deportations already hitting record paces in key hotspots.

The administration has also targeted sanctuary cities, pressuring local leaders to cooperate or face consequences, a direct rebuke to Democrat strongholds like Chicago that shield criminals.

Newsom desperately wants attention. But this isn’t what he had in mind.

And Gavin Newsom has egg on his face after trying to rip the Constitution into pieces.

California’s political landscape is heating up as Republican lawmakers and residents have launched a legal challenge against Governor Gavin Newsom’s attempt to redraw the state’s congressional districts. On Monday, they filed a petition with the state Supreme Court, aiming to stop what they call a blatant power grab by Newsom and his Democratic allies.

The battle, led by the Dhillon Law Group, centers on protecting the state’s independent redistricting process and ensuring transparency in how political lines are drawn.

The controversy kicked off on August 14, when Newsom and fellow Democrats announced a bold plan to introduce a constitutional amendment giving the legislature authority to reshape California’s congressional boundaries. Just four days later, on August 18, they rolled out a legislative package to push it forward.

Critics argue this lightning-fast move tramples on the state’s established rules, which were designed to keep redistricting fair and free from partisan influence.

The petition lays out a clear case: California’s constitution hands the redistricting process to an independent citizens redistricting commission, a system created to curb political maneuvering. “The people of California enshrined in their constitution fundamental rules by which they would have the redistricting power undertaken in this state,” the filing declares.

It stresses that the process was intentionally taken out of the legislature’s hands, limited to once every ten years, and built on extensive public input to block partisan gerrymandering.

Democrats’ recent push, condensed into two Assembly bills and a Senate bill, is accused of breaking these principles. The petition points out that the rushed four-day process ignored the state’s requirement for 30 days of public notice for new legislation.

It also claims the proposed amendment violates the “single subject rule” by cramming two conflicting goals into one measure: “petitioning Congress to institute independent citizens redistricting commissions nationwide to draw voting district maps” and “discarding maps created by California’s independent citizen’s redistricting commission to implement legislation and maps developed in secret by unknow members of the legislature.”

Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group put it bluntly: “Days ago, the California Legislature rushed through hundreds of pages of redistricting changes in just four days, an unconstitutional scheme that rips power away from the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and hands it back to politicians.”

He emphasized that the constitution demands transparency, public engagement, and a once-per-decade timeline—rules he says were completely disregarded. “That is why we’ve gone to the Supreme Court today,” Columbo stated.

State Senator Tony Strickland, a Republican, called the plan “a shining example of why the people took back redistricting in the first place.”

He argued that the Citizens Commission was established to end secretive backroom deals, yet Newsom’s proposal “is forcing Californians to vote in a predetermined election with no transparency, no hearings, and no public input. That’s not democracy—that’s authoritarianism, and I’ll fight it every step of the way.”

Republican Assemblyman Tri Ta added a personal perspective, saying, “I fled a country that never had free elections to come here for freedom.” He called the legislature’s actions “outrageous and a complete violation of the California Constitution.”

Ta also highlighted the financial burden, noting that the proposed special election could cost taxpayers over $200 million at a time when Californians are struggling with issues like affordability, crime, and homelessness.

The petition, filed with a sense of urgency, asks the Supreme Court to act by September 8 to block what it describes as a rogue redistricting effort, partly in response to moves by Texas Republicans.

The Dhillon Law Group, founded by Harmeet Dhillon—who left the firm earlier this year to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice—is leading the charge to defend the rights of California’s citizens.

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

Biden’s time in the White House is over. But he’s still being heavily scrutinized for his poor performance as president.

And a top Republican senator reveals a dark secret about Biden that will blow your mind.

Senator Grassley Reflects on Biden’s Legacy and Family Controversies

In a revealing discussion on the latest episode of “Pod Force One,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered a candid take on former President Joe Biden’s legacy, casting it as tarnished by family controversies and questions about his capacity to lead. The 91-year-old senator, a fixture in Congress since 1980, didn’t mince words when assessing Biden’s tenure, pointing to allegations of influence peddling and concerns over the former president’s mental and physical health.

“Considering the fact that he doesn’t look like he was running [the White House] at least in [the most] recent two or three years, I think he will never go down in history as a very effective senator or very effective president,” Grassley said.

Reflecting on their nearly three decades as Senate colleagues, he recalled a cordial working relationship. “I got along with him,” Grassley noted.

“I didn’t think he was corrupt. I didn’t think he was incompetent. I had a pretty good relationship with him for 28 years that we served together … I wouldn’t say I was close. But we worked together on legislation. We got along personally pretty well.”

Grassley observed a dramatic shift in Biden after he left the Senate in 2008 to serve as Barack Obama’s vice president. He suggested that Biden’s physical and mental changes were so pronounced that many of his administration’s decisions—such as sweeping pardons and commutations for some violent offenders—likely stemmed from aides rather than Biden himself.

“Yes. Yes,” Grassley affirmed when New York Post columnist Miranda Devine raised the point. “When you do 1,000 commutations and pardons, and you don’t pay any attention to what you’re doing [that’s not] your job [anymore].”

Having met Biden in person only once during his presidency, Grassley relied on public accounts and media to shape his view. “What I’ve learned by what everybody else has said [is] going on and what you observed on TV, that a lot changed since he left the United States Senate,” he said.

He admitted to initial disbelief, saying, “I think if you feel like you know somebody well, it’s hard to believe some of the things that you originally heard,” adding that he might have been “a little naive about how I looked at the President Biden compared to Senator Biden.”

Grassley, whose team is known for dogged investigations, also highlighted his role in exposing financial dealings tied to Biden’s son, Hunter. He claimed to have uncovered millions in payments to Hunter from foreign business associates during Joe Biden’s vice presidency.

Grassley’s push led then-FBI Director Christopher Wray to release a file alleging a $10 million bribe involving Hunter and Joe Biden from a Burisma Holdings executive in Ukraine. That informant, Alexander Smirnov, was later charged with lying and sentenced to six years in prison in January 2025.

Grassley remarked on the FBI’s long reliance on Smirnov, noting, “They’d been paying the informant for a decade, maybe longer than a decade … and he was giving them misinformation as well.”

No further charges were brought against Hunter Biden for failing to register as a foreign agent, with special counsel David Weiss citing insufficient evidence.

Biden’s decision to pardon Hunter a month before leaving office—despite repeated pledges not to—drew little surprise from Grassley.

The broad clemency, spanning potential crimes from 2014 to 2024 and covering Hunter’s convictions for illegal firearm possession and a guilty plea for $1.4 million in tax evasion, prompted Grassley to say, “I’m not surprised. But it shouldn’t have been done and proves the guilt of Hunter Biden.”

You can watch Grassley’s interview by using the video player below:

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The president is ready for war. He’s not going to let his enemies get away with their antics.

And Trump targets a bitter rival with a shocking DOJ investigation.

Trump Rekindles Feud with Christie, Hints at New Bridgegate Probe

President Donald Trump reignited a fierce rivalry with former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on Monday, threatening to push for a federal criminal investigation into Christie’s alleged involvement in the 2013 “Bridgegate” scandal.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump’s remarks came hours after he unleashed a scathing Truth Social post, blasting “sloppy Chris Christie” for having “lied about the dangerous and deadly closure of the George Washington Bridge in order to stay out of prison.”

Donald J. Trump Truth Social 08.24.25 08:26 PM EST pic.twitter.com/K4UrtlWysM

— Fan Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) August 25, 2025

Trump didn’t hold back when pressed by reporters. “Look, Chris is a slob, everybody knows it,” he said. “I know Chris better than anybody in the room. I always felt he was guilty.”

His comments zeroed in on the September 2013 lane closures on the George Washington Bridge, a notorious act of political payback that snarled traffic between Fort Lee, New Jersey, and Manhattan. The closures, Trump stressed, were “very serious,” trapping “medical people” and “ambulances” in gridlock.

The president accused Christie of dodging responsibility by pinning the blame on subordinates. “Obviously, he knew about it,” Trump insisted, pointing to a female aide who “went through h*ll” but was later “exonerated, but she got out of it a little bit.”

In 2020, the Supreme Court overturned convictions of two aides involved with the scandal, ruling that their actions, though deceptive and corrupt, didn’t violate federal law.

“Chris got off,” Trump said, before adding, “And so when I listen to Chris speak his hate, I say, ‘Oh, what about the George Washington Bridge?’ You know? ‘Tell me about the George Washington Bridge.’ He blamed other people, but he knew all about it.”

While Trump left the door open for a Justice Department investigation into the 12-year-old controversy, he deferred to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“If they want to look at it — not for me — if they want to look at it, they can,” he said to reporters. “You could ask Pam [Bondi].” Still, he couldn’t resist a final jab: “I think we have other things to do, but I always thought he got away with m*rder.”

The attack follows Christie’s recent criticism of Trump on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, where he commented in on the federal investigation into former National Security Advisor John Bolton, another Trump critic whose home and office were raided Friday.

Christie, once a Trump ally during the 2016 campaign, has since renounced his support and has become a vocal opponent.

Trump’s revival of Bridgegate seems calculated to discredit Christie, stirring up a long-dormant scandal to fuel their ongoing feud. Whether the Justice Department will pursue the matter remains unclear, but Trump’s words have thrust the controversy back into the spotlight.

You can watch Trump’s comments about Christie by using the video player below:

President Trump slams Chris Christie,

He’s "a slob, everybody knows it."

pic.twitter.com/tb6nAK9C7K

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) August 25, 2025

Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.

The Trump White House is laying down the hammer. The corrupt D.C. swamp is facing the consequences.

Because President Trump’s just fired a Biden official who was caught red-handed committing crimes.

President Donald Trump is taking a sledgehammer to the entrenched corruption within America’s federal institutions, and his latest move against Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook is a prime example of his no-nonsense approach. On Monday night, Trump announced Cook’s immediate removal from the Fed’s board, citing allegations of mortgage fraud that cast a dark shadow over her integrity.

Last week, Trump called for Cook’s resignation after Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte exposed her alleged misconduct. Pulte notified Attorney General Pam Bondi that Cook “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, potentially committing mortgage fraud.” Despite Trump’s demand, Cook defiantly refused to step down, forcing the president to take matters into his own hands.

In a letter posted to Truth Social, Trump laid out his case with clarity: “The Federal Reserve has tremendous responsibility for setting interest rates and regulating reserve and member banks. The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve.”

He went on to say, “In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity. I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position.” These words resonate with millions of Americans tired of elitists gaming the system while hardworking citizens foot the bill.

Pulte’s allegations against Cook are serious. He claims she listed two residences as her primary home, with the second designation made just weeks after securing a loan on her Michigan property. This kind of manipulation, known as occupancy fraud, can lead to lower interest rates and better loan terms—benefits that honest Americans are denied when officials exploit the system. Pulte’s focus on this issue isn’t new; he’s been relentless in exposing similar misconduct among other high-profile Democrats, including California Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The Trump administration’s push to clean up corruption extends far beyond the Federal Reserve. Since taking office, Trump has prioritized rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse across federal agencies. The White House has emphasized that “Since Day One, President Trump has prioritized eliminating waste and fraud in the Federal government, ensuring Federal spending aligns with American interests.” This commitment is evident in actions like the review of federal grant programs, which have long been criticized for funneling taxpayer dollars to politically connected insiders.

The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has also taken aim at corrupt Democratic officials. Schiff, who led the charge in Trump’s 2019 impeachment trial, is now under investigation for alleged mortgage fraud, with posts on X indicating that DOJ Special Attorney Ed Martin is probing whether Schiff lied about his primary residence to secure better loan terms. Similarly, Letitia James, who won a $355 million civil fraud judgment against Trump, faces scrutiny for her own property dealings. Grand juries in Virginia and Maryland are reportedly weighing indictments against both.

The Trump administration has made it clear that no one—regardless of political affiliation or status—can escape justice. Pulte himself stated on X, “If you commit mortgage fraud in America, we will come after you, no matter who you are.” This message resonates with a populist base fed up with a two-tiered justice system that lets elites skate while ordinary Americans face harsh penalties for minor infractions.

Trump’s battle with the Federal Reserve isn’t just about Cook. For months, he’s been vocal about his frustration with Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, who has resisted calls to lower interest rates. Trump argues that high rates are strangling the economy, increasing borrowing costs on the nation’s $37 trillion debt, and making homeownership unattainable for many. Powell’s refusal to act, coupled with allegations of mismanaging a $2.5 billion Fed renovation project, has fueled Trump’s push to reform the central bank.

The Cook controversy highlights a deeper issue: the Federal Reserve’s independence, which some argue shields unaccountable bureaucrats. While Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren cry foul, claiming Trump’s actions are an “authoritarian power grab,” supporters see it as a necessary step to restore trust in institutions that have been hijacked by partisan operatives. Cook’s refusal to resign, despite serious allegations, only reinforces the perception that entrenched officials believe they’re untouchable.

The administration’s efforts aren’t limited to high-profile firings. Trump has targeted diversity-focused hires and programs, which many conservatives view as vehicles for cronyism and ideological agendas. Cook, the first Black woman on the Fed’s board, was a Biden appointee whose term was set to run until 2038. Her removal, while controversial, aligns with Trump’s mission to dismantle what he sees as a politicized federal bureaucracy.

Critics of Trump’s approach, like Sen. Chuck Schumer, have rallied behind Cook, with Schumer posting on X, “Trump is a liar. Lisa Cook—stand tough and don’t let Trump intimidate you.” But these defenses ring hollow to a populist audience that sees Democrats protecting their own while ignoring the economic struggles of everyday Americans. The U.S. Dollar Index dropped sharply after Trump’s announcement, a sign that markets are rattled—but supporters argue that short-term pain is worth the long-term gain of cleaning house.

Trump’s supporters see his actions as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to drain the swamp. The Federal Reserve, with its immense power over the economy, has long been a target for populist reformers who view it as an unaccountable institution serving elite interests. By targeting figures like Cook, Trump is sending a message: no one is above scrutiny, and the days of bureaucrats hiding behind their titles are over.

Cook’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, has vowed to fight her removal, arguing that Trump lacks the authority to fire her without proven cause. The Federal Reserve Act limits removals to cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance,” and Cook’s allies insist she’s done nothing wrong. Yet, with the DOJ now probing her actions, the pressure is mounting. A court fight could set a precedent for how much power a president has over the Fed—a battle Trump seems ready to wage.

The lawfare in this country has gotten out of hand. Now it has reached a fever pitch.

Because a Leftist Attorney General bragged about keeping Trump in court for this moronic reason.

Minnesota AG Keith Ellison’s Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Defending Trans Athletes in Girls’ Sports Draws Criticism and Legal Challenges

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has drawn significant attention and criticism for his April 2025 lawsuit against the Trump administration, aimed at protecting transgender athletes’ rights to compete in girls’ and women’s sports, in defiance of President Donald Trump’s “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” executive order issued on February 5, 2025.

In an interview with Public Citizen on August 21, 2025, Ellison emphasized his commitment, stating, “We are fighting to protect transgender athletes… Donald Trump and [Attorney General] Pam Bondi were threatening to sue me, I sued them first!”

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, argues that Trump’s executive orders violate the U.S. Constitution, Title IX, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act by threatening to withhold federal funding from schools that allow transgender girls to participate in sports aligned with their gender identity, per the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.

Legal and Policy Context

Ellison’s legal action, joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, challenges two Trump executive orders: the “Gender Ideology Order” of January 20, 2025, which recognizes only two sexes, and the “Sports Ban Order” of February 5, 2025, which bars transgender girls from girls’ sports, citing unfairness and safety concerns.

The lawsuit secured a preliminary injunction on February 28, 2025, blocking enforcement of the orders in Minnesota and the plaintiff states, per the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.

Ellison’s February 20, 2025, legal opinion declared that Minnesota’s Human Rights Act, which has protected transgender rights since 1993, supersedes Trump’s orders, a stance reinforced by Governor Tim Walz’s 2023 legislation making Minnesota a refuge for transgender youth, per AP News.

However, the U.S. Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services are investigating Minnesota’s defiance, with Attorney General Pam Bondi warning of potential lawsuits against Minnesota and California, per CNN.

Controversy and Public Reaction

The issue gained national prominence after a transgender softball pitcher led Champlin Park High School to a state championship in spring 2025, prompting a separate lawsuit against Ellison, the Minnesota State High School League, and three school districts by three female softball players.

One anonymous player told Fox News Digital that competing against the transgender athlete was “mentally challenging” and “unfair,” citing physical advantages and calling Ellison’s support for trans inclusion “disgusting and wrong.”

The lawsuit, which also names state education and human rights officials, reflects broader tensions, as Minnesota’s legislature failed to pass the Preserving Girls’ Sports Act in March 2025, which would have restricted girls’ sports to biological females, per Fox News.

Critics, including Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth (R-Cold Spring), have called Ellison’s lawsuit a “waste of taxpayer money” that risks federal funding and undermines fairness in girls’ sports, per CBS Minnesota.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields labeled the lawsuit “creepy and anti-woman,” while former Minnesota Vikings player Jack Brewer criticized Ellison’s stance as disconnected from athletic realities, per Fox News.

Conversely, supporters like Gender Justice and state Rep. Leigh Finke, Minnesota’s first openly transgender legislator, argue that excluding trans athletes violates state law and harms vulnerable youth, with Dr. Kelsey Leonardsmith noting that transgender girls are underrepresented in sports, per The Washington Post.

The highest court in the land should be stable and fair. But not everyone agrees.

And now a Supreme Court Justice went off the rails to accuse her colleagues of a shocking crime.

Supreme Court Permits Trump Administration to Cancel $783M in NIH Grants, Prompting Fiery Dissent from Justice Jackson

The Supreme Court, in a pair of 5-4 rulings on August 21, 2025, allowed the Trump administration to proceed with terminating approximately $783 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, reversing a lower court’s order that had restored funding for over 1,700 research projects.

The decision, which permits the cancellation of grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), gender identity, and COVID-19 research, was met with a 21-page dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who accused the majority of engaging in “Calvinball jurisprudence” designed to ensure “this administration always wins,” per Politico.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Jackson—in dissenting against the grant cancellations, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s split vote upheld a lower court’s block on the NIH’s broader guidance for future terminations.

Case Background and Court Rulings

The case stemmed from the Trump administration’s February 2025 decision to halt NIH grants deemed misaligned with its priorities, following executive orders targeting DEI and related initiatives.

U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, had blocked the cuts in June, citing “palpable” racial discrimination and violations of administrative law, per PBS News.

The Supreme Court’s majority, led by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Barrett, ruled that challenges to the grant terminations belong in the Court of Federal Claims due to their contractual nature, though Barrett joined the liberal justices and Roberts to maintain the lower court’s injunction against the NIH’s funding guidance.

Jackson argued the ruling creates a “futile, multivenue quest” for plaintiffs, risking the loss of critical research on heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s, and mental health, with potential consequences including the euthanasia of animal subjects and closure of community clinics, per Courthouse News Service.

Broader Implications and Reactions

The decision, part of the court’s emergency docket, reflects ongoing legal battles over the Trump administration’s policies, with 18 emergency appeals granted at least partially in its favor since January 2025, per The Hill.

Jackson’s dissent criticized the court’s “recent tendencies” to favor the administration, likening its approach to Calvinball—a game with no fixed rules—while Barrett defended the jurisdictional split, arguing that federal district courts lack authority over contract disputes, per Forbes.

The ruling is not final, with an appeal pending in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, and plaintiffs, including 16 Democratic-led states and health organizations, warn of irreparable harm to scientific progress, per Newsweek.

This presidency is one for the history books. And not everyone is happy about that.

Because the Trump administration revoked the security clearance of activist ex-Biden official.

Gabbard Revokes Security Clearances of 37 Officials, Citing Intelligence Abuses

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced the revocation of security clearances for 37 current and former officials, including Maher Bitar, former National Security Council (NSC) senior director for intelligence programs under President Joe Biden, on August 21, 2025.

Gabbard cited “abuses of power” related to the Russia collusion investigation and other intelligence violations, including unauthorized leaks and tradecraft breaches, as the basis for the action, per a statement on X.

Bitar, now national security adviser to Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), previously served as a congressional aide during President Donald Trump’s 2020 impeachment proceedings.

The decision, directed by Trump, has sparked debate over accountability in the intelligence community, with supporters praising the move as a correction of past overreaches and critics arguing it risks politicizing national security.

Details of the Revocations

Bitar, who held top-secret clearance during his NSC tenure from January 2021 to January 2025, had access to sensitive intelligence, including covert operations and clandestine agent identities.

Gabbard stated that the revoked officials “politicized and manipulated intelligence” and “broke the sacred trust” of their oaths, emphasizing that security clearances are a privilege contingent on upholding public trust.

Other affected officials include former Principal Deputy DNI Stephanie O’Sullivan, former NSC spokeswoman Emily Horne, and Vinh X. Nguyen, a senior National Security Agency official, all linked to the Obama administration’s intelligence operations.

Critics, including Gabbard, argue these officials contributed to a discredited 2017 intelligence assessment alleging Russian interference in the 2016 election, based partly on a private dossier later found to contain unverified claims.

Context and Reactions

The revocations follow new intelligence disclosures under Trump’s second term, which allege efforts by some officials to falsely discredit him, including unmasking requests by former UN Ambassador Samantha Power and leaks attributed to Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee, per congressional documents.

A Schiff spokesman defended Bitar, calling him a “trusted and deeply experienced national security professional” with nearly 15 years of service, while the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, referring to Gabbard’s X post.

Bitar’s past affiliations with Students for Justice in Palestine and the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), criticized by Israel for ties to Hamas, have fueled controversy, with former Ambassador David Friedman and activist Laura Loomer questioning his suitability for sensitive roles.

America has been invaded by illegal immigrants. Now the gloves are off.

And the US military issued an unprecedented order for the southern border.

Pentagon Introduces Mexican Border Defense Medal to Honor Troops in Trump’s Crackdown on Illegal Immigration

The Pentagon has introduced the Mexican Border Defense Medal (MBDM) to recognize U.S. service members deployed to the southern border since January 20, 2025, as part of President Donald Trump’s aggressive campaign to curb illegal immigration, according to an August 13 Pentagon memorandum confirmed by a U.S. defense official to Fox News Digital.

Replacing the Armed Forces Service Medal (AFSM), previously awarded for border support since 2018, the MBDM honors approximately 8,500 troops, including 1,500 National Guard members, assigned to Joint Task Force Southern Border for their role in securing the U.S.-Mexico border, where illegal crossings have dropped to under 5,000 per month in 2025, per Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.

Medal Eligibility and Task Force Operations

Eligibility for the MBDM requires service members to be permanently assigned, attached, or detailed to a unit supporting CBP within 100 nautical miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California, or within 24 nautical miles of adjacent U.S. waters, for at least 30 consecutive or nonconsecutive days, per the Pentagon memo.

The task force, launched in March 2025, completed 3,500 patrols by July, enhancing detection, monitoring, and drug interdiction efforts, including a notable seizure of 1,296 pounds of cocaine by the USS Sampson and U.S. Coast Guard, per Defense World.

Four newly established national defense areas, covering 110,000 acres, grant troops authority to detain illegal trespassers, a power previously restricted under federal law, enabling swift handovers to CBP, as stated by Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot of U.S. Northern Command.

Service members previously awarded the AFSM for border duty may apply to exchange it for the MBDM but cannot hold both for the same period, ensuring the new medal distinctly honors Trump’s border security mission.

Impact and Controversy

The MBDM, positioned after the Korea Defense Service Medal in precedence, reflects a historic shift in recognizing military contributions to border enforcement, drawing parallels to the 1917 Mexican Service Medal and 1918 Mexican Border Service Medal issued during the Pancho Villa Expedition.

Supporters, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, praise the medal as a fitting tribute to troops who’ve reduced illegal immigration by over 70% since January, per posts on X, easing pressure on local economies and public services.

Critics, however, argue the medal glorifies a militarized approach, with some X users calling it a “participation trophy” that distracts from broader immigration policy challenges.

The Pentagon’s $200 million reallocation to replace a 12-foot mesh barrier with a 30-foot permanent wall at the Barry M. Goldwater Range further cements Trump’s focus on fortifying the border, a move credited with contributing to a 1.4 million drop in the U.S. immigrant population by June 2025, per Pew Research Center data.

Trump is moving fast to reshape America. There are years of damage that need to be undone.

And now the first fruits of Donald Trump’s agenda are sweeter than you’d expect.

Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Yields Historic Drop in US Immigrant Population

President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration policies have achieved a historic milestone, reducing the US immigrant population by 1.5 million in the first six months of 2025, from 53.3 million to 51.9 million, according to the Pew Research Center, marking the first decline in 50 years.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports that 1.6 million undocumented migrants have voluntarily left the US since Trump’s inauguration, driven by tightened border security and robust enforcement. Illegal border crossings have plummeted to under 5,000 per month, with zero migrants released into the US, a stark contrast to the estimated 10 million illegal entries during the Biden administration, per DHS data.

Trump’s leadership has restored order, prioritizing American workers and public resources, though critics argue the measures disrupt communities and legal immigration pathways.

Enforcement Achievements and Economic Impact

The Trump administration’s efforts include a massive deportation push, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies arresting 359,000 undocumented migrants and deporting 332,000 in the first 200 days, as reported by DHS.

ICE, under Border Czar Tom Homan, targets 3,000 daily arrests, focusing on sanctuary cities like New York and Los Angeles, though meeting this quota consistently remains challenging. A record 60,000 immigrants are currently detained, with some opting for self-deportation via the CBP Home app.

The State Department revoked 6,000 student visas, citing crimes like assault or alleged terrorism support, though critics question the transparency of these revocations.

The immigrant workforce share dropped from 20% to 19%, reducing 750,000 immigrant workers, which DHS Secretary Kristi Noem credits for easing strain on public services and boosting local job markets.

Trump celebrated the negative net migration on Truth Social, calling it a victory for border security.

Context and Challenges

While the immigrant population remains high at 15.4% of the US total, surpassing historical peaks, the decline echoes the 1930s Great Depression exodus.

Supporters praise Trump’s policies for prioritizing national security and economic stability, but opponents, including Democratic lawmakers, argue that targeting non-criminals and revoking legal statuses risks due process and community cohesion.

Ongoing legal challenges and public protests highlight the contentious nature of these policies, yet the administration remains committed to its goal of deporting 1 million undocumented migrants annually, leveraging new funding and inter-agency support to expand detention capacity.