A federal judge in Washington, D.C. declined for the time being to grant watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump's "Anti-Weaponization" fund to pay out allies who were investigated for criminal wrongdoing, reported Meidas Touch's Scott MacFarlane — citing the fact the administration killed the fund themselves.However, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, had a stern warning for the Trump administration: if you try to bring the fund back online, it will be a different story.In his decision, MacFarlane noted, Leon said he will accept acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's claim the fund “is not moving forward” — but he instructed the DOJ, "Don't play possum with this court!"During the hearing, Leon grilled attorneys for DOJ, asking why the agency did not "rescind" the order creating the fund if it is truly canceled, to which the lawyer replied, “I don’t know.”CREW, for their part, slammed the fund in their arguments as “illegally created” and “Deliberately structured to operate with maximum secrecy,” insisting that if the fund is truly "not moving forward," the DOJ should put that in writing.All of this comes after Senate Republicans debated, but ultimately passed on, language in the newly-passed Homeland Security reconciliation bill that would formally eliminate or at least restrict the use of the fund.
A Democratic lawmaker didn't mince words on Wednesday and dropped a stunning rebuke to President Donald Trump.Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) criticized Trump and his $1.8 billion slush fund in an interview with Scott MacFarlane, chief Washington correspondent and anchor at MeidasTouch."What do you think your constituents think about this slush fund?" MacFarlane asked."They're disgusted," McGovern said. "They think Trump is a corrupt son of a b---- who doesn’t give a s--- about them.""He's not doing anything to do with the issues of affordability, gas prices are going up, inflation is up, healthcare costs are up, housing costs are up, everything is up," McGovern said. "He's doing nothing about it and this Congress is doing nothing about it."He said that Republicans are "scared s------" of Trump and afraid of retribution."I tried three times to get them to make an amendment in order, so we could eliminate this taxpayer-funded slush fund and all three times, every single Republican in this committee voted no to not allow an amendment to go to the floor, to even debate it, they voted no," McGovern added. "What's happening in this Congress is the speaker of the House, the Republican leadership, have turned this place into an embarrassment."MacFarlane: What do you think your constituents think about this slush fund?McGovern: They think Trump is a corrupt son of a bitch who doesn’t give a shit about them.[image or embed]— Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) June 10, 2026 at 10:19 AMMacFarlane: What do you think your constituents think about this slush fund?McGovern: Republicans are scared shitless of Trump. They won’t even say they are mildly concerned because they are afraid of retribution. He is the most corrupt president in history. pic.twitter.com/eMNYlty4EX— Acyn (@Acyn) June 10, 2026
In April, the Supreme Court handed down a controversial decision which critics say “eviscerated” the Voting Rights Act. Now, according to new reporting from Vox, the impact of this decision is about to spread from the voting box to the workplace. Per Vox, “President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice released an opinion on Tuesday that, in the likely event it is embraced by a Republican-controlled federal judiciary, would make it significantly harder for plaintiffs who face employment discrimination to prevail in court.” It was notable that the opinion was signed by T. Elliot Gaiser, head of the Office of Legal Counsel and a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito, author of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Essentially, Gaiser’s opinion argues that the same logic Alito used to attack voting rights can be applied to employment anti-discrimination law. According to Vox senior Supreme Court correspondent Ian Millhiser, “if you accept Alito’s opinion in Callais as legitimate, then Gaiser’s approach to employment discrimination is hardly a stretch. Indeed, it is the next logical move in the Republican Party’s broader campaign to weaken civil rights protections for racial minorities.”As Millhiser explains, “The 1982 law that Alito targeted in Callais provided that voting rights plaintiffs who challenged a state election law did not need to prove that state lawmakers acted with racist intent in order to prevail. Under that law, which was repealed by Callais, a state law that ‘results’ in voters having their right to vote diminished due to their race may also be challenged.” Now, because of the Supreme Court’s decision, voting districts can more or less be gerrymandered at will, even scrubbing Black districts entirely out of existence, because the language in Alito's opinion makes it nearly impossible to prove racist intent.Gaiser’s decision concerns a similar law regarding employment, and he’s making essentially the same argument raised by conservative justices: that a discrimination case can prevail only if racist or sexist intent is explicit. And given these similarities, says Millhiser, Gaiser’s claim “is likely to prevail before a Republican Supreme Court.”According to Millhiser, there are two upshots to this conclusion: “One is that it should be significantly harder for many employment discrimination plaintiffs to prevail. The other, which is potentially even more significant, is that elected officials should lose much of their power to remedy discrimination of all kinds, and the scope of civil rights law should be determined primarily by the Supreme Court.”As Millhiser explains, “both the Voting Rights Act’s results test and employment discrimination’s disparate impact test, after all, were enacted into law by Congress. But the Republican Party’s consistent position on civil rights laws is that democratically enacted civil rights laws must bow to the whims of Republican justices.”In essence, it is the position of conservatives on the court that “these difficult policy questions should be removed from the democratic process and given to a Republican judiciary.” Millhiser asserts that this should raise troubling questions as to “why six Republican lawyers in black robes have more insight into US civil rights policy than the people American voters elected to make these decisions.”
Trump is angry over the United States' dwindling stockpile of missiles as he looks to once again escalate the conflict with Iran, according to a new report.According to insiders who spoke to NBC News, "the president has expressed anger to aides and allies over thinning American stockpiles." Amid war in Iran, the U.S. military is burning through the Pentagon's supplies of missiles and interceptors, according to NBC News, citing defense officials. While Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dismissed concerns, military officials, lawmakers, and outside experts worry about how the U.S. will respond if another enemy attacks, NBC News noted.At the same time, Trump is mulling whether to restart major combat operations in Iran on top of the new strikes launched in retaliation for a downed Apache helicopter earlier this week.Leaders from about seven defense companies are preparing to meet with Trump at the White House later this week, and they expect a contentious discussion because of missile stockpiles, insiders told NBC News. One person familiar with the meeting told NBC News they expect it's "going to be ugly."Those defense industry leaders are expecting Trump to press them to quickly produce arms and restock the Pentagon's inventory, according to NBC News.A White House official denied that such a meeting is scheduled "at this time," according to NBC News. The Pentagon didn't respond to NBC News' request for comment.
Alastair Campbell and Jacob Rees-Moog share little common ground on Britain’s decision to leave the European Union a decade ago — except both agree a second vote to join is unlikely in the near future.
President Trump suggested on Wednesday that he will release the "full files" on the 2020 election, proving it was stolen from him. "We have things that you won't believe, Trump said.
The post WATCH: “You’re Not Going to Believe How Crooked the 2020 Election Was” – Trump Says “Full Files” on Rigged 2020 Election Incoming appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright dropped an expletive at a House hearing Wednesday — and got scolded for it by the Republican running the room.The meltdown came after Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI) confronted Wright over President Donald Trump's broken pledge to slash energy prices by 50% and the Department of Energy's cancellation of hundreds of clean energy grants in blue states."Has Donald Trump fulfilled his promise?" Amo asked."He sets ambitious targets, and he is all in on driving in that direction," Wright hedged."So my answer is no!" Amo noted."Not yet!" Wright fired back.Amo then charged that Wright had canceled more than 300 projects in Democratic-leaning states — including $14 million for three Rhode Island grants — and that a court found the DOE violated the Constitution. He then quoted from litigation in which the DOE's own attorneys wrote that "a primary reason for the selection of which DOE grant termination decisions were included in the October 2025 notice tranche was whether the grantee was located in a blue state.""We did not involve politics in the decisions!" Wright said, denying the charge."What about the outcomes, Mr. Secretary?" Amo pressed.Wright snapped: "So it's bulls—! We're gonna say it a million times! Not true!"That prompted Amo to call a point of parliamentary procedure. "Are we promoting language like that from witnesses?"House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chair Brian Babin (R-TX) stepped in. "Watch your language there, Mr. Secretary," he said, before trying to move on."We'll do [that], sir!" Wright promised.Amo accused Wright of performing for "your audience of one" — President Trump — and pressed him again on whether he would restore the canceled grants."We've gone overboard for New England, for California, for blue states!" Wright dodged."That's not an answer!" Amo shot back, reclaiming his time. He closed with a final question: "Do you believe federal grant decisions should be based in any way on how a state's voters cast their ballots in a presidential election?""They shouldn't, and they weren't!" Wright said.Amo had the last word: "Mr. Secretary, this hearing started with Trump's promise to lower energy costs. Instead, you've bloviated."
