Connect with us

Politics

Trump Grows Increasingly Combative in Showdowns With the Courts

Published

on

Trump Grows Increasingly Combative in Showdowns With the Courts

The Trump administration’s compliance with court orders started with foot-dragging, moved to semantic gymnastics and has now arrived at the cusp of outright defiance.

Large swaths of President Trump’s agenda have been tied up in court, challenged in scores of lawsuits. The administration has frozen money that the courts have ordered it to spend. It has blocked The Associated Press from the White House press pool despite a court order saying that the news organization be allowed to participate. And it ignored a judge’s instruction to return planes carrying Venezuelan immigrants bound for a notorious prison in El Salvador.

But Exhibit A in what legal scholars say is a deeply worrisome and escalating trend is the administration’s combative response to the Supreme Court’s ruling last week in the case of a Salvadoran immigrant. The administration deported the immigrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, to El Salvador despite a 2019 ruling from an immigration judge specifically and directly prohibiting that very thing.

Until recently, none of this was in dispute. “The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal,” the Supreme Court said on Thursday in an unsigned and to all appearances unanimous order.

The justices upheld a part of an order from Judge Paula Xinis of the Federal District Court in Maryland that had required the government to “facilitate” Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return. He had by then been held for almost a month in one of the most squalid and dangerous prisons on earth.

Advertisement

The administration’s response has been to quibble, stall and ignore requests for information from Judge Xinis. In an Oval Office meeting on Monday between Mr. Trump and President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, both men made plain that they had no intention of returning Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States.

In remarks in the Oval Office and on television, Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s top domestic policy adviser, said the administration’s earlier concessions, made by several officials and in a Supreme Court filing, were themselves mistaken, the work of a rogue lawyer. He added that the Supreme Court had unanimously endorsed the administration’s position that judges may not meddle in foreign policy.

Ed Whelan, a conservative legal commentator, said that was a misreading of the ruling.

“The administration is clearly acting in bad faith,” he said. “The Supreme Court and the district court have properly given it the freedom to select the means by which it will undertake to ensure Abrego Garcia’s return. The administration is abusing that freedom by doing basically nothing.”

White House officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

The administration has also responded to court orders blocking its programs in other ways, speaking to audiences outside the courtroom. Mr. Trump and his allies have waged relentless rhetorical attacks on several judges who have ruled against the president, at times calling for their impeachment and at others suggesting that Mr. Trump is not bound by the law.

Assessing whether, when and how much the administration is defying the courts is complicated by a new phenomenon, legal scholars said, pointing to what they called a collapse in the credibility of representations by the Justice Department. These days, its lawyers are sometimes sent to court with no information, sometimes instructed to make arguments that are factually or legally baseless and sometimes punished for being honest.

Defiance, then, may not be a straightforward declaration that the government will not comply with a ruling. It may be an appearance by a hapless lawyer who has or claims to have no information. Or it may be a legal argument so outlandish as to amount to insolence.

Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, said the Trump administration had exposed dual fault lines, in the constitutional structure and in the limits of permissible advocacy.

“I would like to think that at least some of the Trump administration’s arguments have crossed that line,” Professor Levinson said, “but, frankly, I don’t really know where the line is.”

Advertisement

Courts generally give government lawyers the benefit of the doubt, presuming that they are acting in good faith even when they make ambitious arguments for a broad conception of executive power.

“We are beyond that point,” said Marin Levy, a law professor at Duke. “It is alarming that we are even having to ask whether the government is failing to comply with court orders.”

Just hours after the Supreme Court ruled in Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case, Judge Xinis asked the government three questions on Thursday night: Where was Mr. Abrego Garcia being held? What steps had the government taken to get him home? And what additional steps did it plan to take?

At first, the administration’s lawyers refused to respond, saying in a court filing on Friday that they needed more time and at a hearing that day that they had no answers to the judge’s questions.

Judge Xinis wrote that they had “failed to comply with this court’s order,” and she called for daily updates, at 5 p.m., a deadline the administration has treated as a suggestion.

Advertisement

On Saturday, an administration official grudgingly acknowledged that “Abrego Garcia is currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador.” The official said nothing about what the government was doing to facilitate the prisoner’s return.

Mr. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have urged Judge Xinis to consider holding the government in contempt, a question she may consider at a hearing on Tuesday.

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, said the administration was “certainly close to defiance in the Abrego Garcia case.”

“At the very least,” he said, “they are taking maximal advantage of possible ambiguity in the meaning of ‘facilitate.’ It is not plausible to interpret that term as meaning they need make no real effort.”

In a brief filed on Sunday, the administration argued that the Supreme Court’s requirement that it “facilitate” Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return meant only that it must “remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here.”

Advertisement

That argument, Michael Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, wrote in a blog post, “does not pass the laugh test.”

Still, last week’s Supreme Court decision gave the administration some room to maneuver, notably in instructing Judge Xinis to clarify her initial ruling “with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” The decision added: “For its part, the government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”

The dispute seems certain to return to the justices if the administration sticks to its hard-line approach. Should lower courts order Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return or hold officials in contempt, the administration will surely again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. And if Mr. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers cannot secure his return, they too will seek further help from the justices.

Other disputes have also raised questions about whether the administration is defying the courts. A district court judge in Washington, for instance, ordered the White House to back off from its stated policy of barring The Associated Press from its press pool. But the administration showed no signs of budging.

Last week, Judge Trevor McFadden ruled that the White House had discriminated against the wire service by using access to the president as leverage to compel its journalists to adopt the term “Gulf of America” in their coverage. When the outlet refused, the White House began to turn its reporters away from the pool of journalists who cover the president daily.

Advertisement

Until February, The A.P. and its competitors, such as Reuters and Bloomberg, reliably sent reporters to travel with the president on Air Force One and to cover exclusive events in the Oval Office and the East Room every day a president had scheduled public events.

Recognizing that the administration would most likely challenge his ruling, Judge McFadden put his decision on hold until Sunday, and the government promptly filed its appeal on Thursday. But the stay expired on Monday, and the appeals court did not intervene to keep it in place.

Even so, the administration did not allow either a print journalist or a photographer from The A.P. to be included in the pool to cover Monday’s events, including the meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Bukele. The White House’s only acknowledgment of the deadline appeared to be in a filing on Monday asking the appeals court to restore the temporary stay.

The Trump administration has seemingly capitalized on confusion in other cases.

Long after judges ordered the administration to unfreeze funding from contracts and grants disbursed by U.S.A.I.D. and FEMA, contractors and states led by Democrats repeatedly reported that payments were still being held up. Twice in February, judges granted motions to enforce their orders, finding that the administration was dragging its feet.

Advertisement

The gap between lawyerly obstinacy and flat-out defiance seems to shrink by the day, at least in the lower courts. For now, neither the president nor the justices seem eager for the ultimate constitutional confrontation.

“If the Supreme Court said, ‘Bring somebody back,’ I would do that,” Mr. Trump said on Friday. “I respect the Supreme Court.”

Zach Montague contributed reporting

Politics

‘Severe’ Pentagon lockdown sparks emergency response as hazmat teams sweep area

Published

on

‘Severe’ Pentagon lockdown sparks emergency response as hazmat teams sweep area

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Certain areas in the Pentagon went on lockdown Thursday morning due to an “air quality incident,” Fox News Digital has learned. 

An alert, shared with Fox News Digital, carrying a “severe” rating was sent to employees in multiple corridors of the building directing them to shelter in place. All other personnel were told to avoid the area.

“The Pentagon has sophisticated systems to ensure the safety of the building and its occupants,” chief spokesperson Sean Parnell told Fox News Digital. “Those systems have detected an air quality issue necessitating precautionary measures until we determine its significance. The Department is executing standard protection protocols, including a shelter-in-place order for the affected area.  Response teams are in place and ready to support building occupants.”

The Pentagon is seen from an airplane, Tuesday, April 7, 2026, in Washington. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Advertisement

A hazardous materials team is scrubbing several locations in the Pentagon’s A ring, the center-most location in the building, according to a Pentagon official. 

Approximately 23,000 to 27,000 people work in the Pentagon on any given day. 

Secretary Pete Hegeth’s office and chairman of the joint chiefs Gen. Dan Caine’s office are not located in the corridors placed under lockdown. 

Systems detected a problem with the air quality in that part of the building and a device picked up a biohazard scent, the Pentagon source told Fox News. Nothing has been found as of this writing.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The Arlington, Virginia, fire department confirmed on X it sent its Hazardous Materials team to support the Pentagon Force Protection Agency’s Hazmat team with the incident.

Fox News’ Liz Friden contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

Who will be the new ’60 Minutes’ correspondents?

Published

on

Who will be the new ’60 Minutes’ correspondents?

While the smoke has begun to clear at “60 Minutes” after three correspondents were fired, CBS News leadership now faces the challenge of finding journalists who can fill their shoes just three months before a new season starts.

The venerable news magazine was plunged into crisis last week as longtime correspondent Scott Pelley confronted management about the May 28 firings of his colleagues Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega along with the program’s executive producer Tanya Simon and her second-in-command Draggan Mihailovich.

Pelley, who also accused CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss of “murdering” the program, was terminated June 2 after a 37-year career at the network. He later gave an interview to The New York Times, accusing Weiss of “putting her thumb on the scale” for the Trump administration when guiding the editorial direction of stories.

(CBS News denied Pelley’s accusations. But Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, who has given Weiss a free hand in disrupting the CBS News hierarchy, found the turbulent situation concerning enough to personally reach out to veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl, according to The New York Times. He assured Stahl that he will respect the editorial independence of the program, a message she passed along to the staff.)

Lesley Stahl in the 2022 film “Marcel the Shell With Shoes On.”

Advertisement

(A24)

The recent personnel bloodbath followed the already announced departure of Anderson Cooper, and leaves CBS News with four correspondent roles to fill and a far less experienced executive producer — former tech journalist Nick Bilton in place to keep the program on track.

Remaining staffers were encouraged that Maria Gavrilovic, a 19-year veteran of CBS News who worked closely with Pelley, was promoted to senior producer under Bilton. They are also relieved that correspondents Stahl, Jon Wertheim and Bill Whitaker chose to remain with the program rather than leave in solidarity with Pelley.

Norah O'Donnell's interview with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in 2021.

Norah O’Donnell’s interview with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in 2021.

Advertisement

But “60 Minutes” is under pressure to get a new team in place as newcomers will have little time to learn the program’s formula that gives it the comforting consistency its viewers seek. The 13-minute pieces on “60 Minutes” are filmed, written and voice-tracked in a distinctive narrative style that takes time to master, according to people who have gone through the process.

Weiss has told people internally that “60 Minutes” is the most important platform within the news division and if a major story comes from outside its corps of correspondents, it will find a place on the program.

Here are the leading contenders for full-time roles based on interviews with several sources at CBS News who were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. A CBS News representative declined comment.

Holly Williams: Williams has been a foreign correspondent working out of Istanbul since 2012. The Australian journalist has reported extensively from war zones in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Gaza and Ukraine. When covering Syria’s civil war from inside the country, she and her team gained access to a prison where alleged ISIS terrorists were being held.

Williams has contributed reports to “60 Minutes” over the years. Before joining CBS, she was a Beijing-based correspondent for Sky News.

Advertisement
CBS News foreign correspondent Holly Williams,

CBS News foreign correspondent Holly Williams,

(Michele Crowe / CBS News)

Tony Dokoupil: The anchor of “CBS Evening News” is expected to be added as a contributor to “60 Minutes,” a role also given to his predecessors at the newscast including Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Scott Pelley and Norah O’Donnell.

Dokoupil has done longer interviews and segments for “CBS Sunday Morning” over his 11 years at the network. The additional exposure to a Sunday night audience of more than 9 million who tune into “60 Minutes” could also help boost his nightly newscast. The program has struggled in the ratings since he took over in January when, during his inaugural week, he awkwardly saluted Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the close of one episode.

"CBS Evening News" anchor Tony Dokoupil and the network's chief national correspondent Matt Gutman.

“CBS Evening News” anchor Tony Dokoupil and the network’s chief national correspondent Matt Gutman.

(CBS News)

Advertisement

Matt Gutman: The network’s national correspondent was Weiss’ first significant on-air talent hire when he joined from ABC News in December. Gutman has been a frequent presence on big stories and breaking coverage for “CBS Evening News” since he arrived.

Mariana van Zeller at the Ultimate Disney Fan Event at the Anaheim Convention Center in September 2022.

Mariana van Zeller at the Ultimate Disney Fan Event at the Anaheim Convention Center in September 2022.

(Image Group LA / Walt Disney Co.)

Mariana van Zeller: The multilingual journalist is best known for her documentary series “Trafficked,” which airs on the National Geographic Channel. Van Zeller, 50, has won dozens of awards for the program that has taken her around the world to report on black market activities and human trafficking.

Advertisement

Norah O’Donnell: Currently a contributor to “60 Minutes” who already appears on the program’s trademark open, O’Donnell’s role is expected to expand. After CBS settled a $16-million lawsuit filed by President Trump against the program for what he claimed was deceptive editing of an interview, O’Donnell helped the program by stepping up to interview the president twice, subjecting him to tough questions. Her recent joint interview with three U.S. cardinals about Pope Leo XIV and his church’s opposition to the Iran war and Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown became a major story in April.

Major Garrett: The network’s chief Washington correspondent recently appeared on “60 Minutes” to interview Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The assignment caused internal tension as Stahl was pursuing a sit-down with the leader. But Weiss handled the booking and gave Netanyahu the option to select Garrett.

While the decision faced some criticism, the program regularly agreed to former President Obama’s preference for now-retired “60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Kroft to interview him even though other journalists on the team wanted a chance.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump’s Plaques on the Presidential ‘Walk of Fame,’ Fact-Checked and Annotated by Historians

Published

on

Trump’s Plaques on the Presidential ‘Walk of Fame,’ Fact-Checked and Annotated by Historians

In a well-trafficked walkway linking the West Wing to the White House residence, President Trump has recast history with gold-lettered plaques that summarize each of the 47 U.S. presidencies.

They are peppered with falsehoods, misrepresentations, insults, praise, self-promotion and erratic capitalizations.

Advertisement

Attendees at a Rose Garden dinner mingled near the plaques in May. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

The Times photographed each plaque and asked eight historians who have studied and written about both Democratic and Republican presidents to examine and annotate the exhibit, which spans 5,400 words.

Advertisement
  • Nicole Anslover

    Florida Atlantic University

  • Portrait of Douglas Brinkley

    Douglas Brinkley

    Rice University

  • Portrait of David Greenberg

    David Greenberg

    Rutgers University

    Advertisement
  • Portrait of Timothy Naftali

    Timothy Naftali

    Columbia University

  • Portrait of Larry Sabato

    Larry Sabato

    University of Virginia

  • Portrait of Daryl Scott

    Daryl Scott

    Morgan State University

  • Portrait of Marc Selverstone

    Marc Selverstone

    University of Virginia

  • Portrait of Sean Wilentz

    Sean Wilentz

    Princeton University

    Advertisement

The historians noted that the plaques are not a dispassionate museum display. Rather, they said, they are a skewed narrative of history by Mr. Trump, with him as the protagonist. The plaques are written in Mr. Trump’s signature hyperbolic style, as seen in his social media posts.

Asked about the plaques, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, ​said, “As a student of history, many were written directly by the president himself.” The Times shared the historians’ observations with the White House, which declined to comment on the specific points in the annotations. It also declined to provide details on the sources Mr. Trump and others used to write the plaques.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump showed the plaques to New York Times reporters in January. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

The commentary surrounding more recent presidents — like Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Barack Obama — adopts a sharper and more partisan tone. While entries for earlier presidents are less combative, they recast history in a way that favors Mr. Trump’s priorities and the unprecedented actions of his administration. The exhibit “is not so much bad history as it is anti-historical,” said Sean Wilentz, an American history professor at Princeton University.

Tariffs are mentioned 18 times. Major scandals are left out (Teapot Dome), or not explained (Watergate). The Monroe Doctrine — which Mr. Trump has misinterpreted, historians say, and used to justify U.S. interventions in the Western Hemisphere — is repeatedly lauded.

The White House ballroom project — which is still under construction and caught in a legal battle — is described as already built. Mr. Trump himself appears in the capsules of six predecessors. And the description of the first year of his second term takes up more space than the summaries for the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt combined.

Advertisement

Below is the full, unedited text of the plaques, along with a selection of historians’ comments that has been edited for clarity. While the annotations offer insight across the plaques, they are not meant to be comprehensive. Unannotated copy may also include falsehoods or misrepresentations.

Advertisement

Explore the plaques, with  annotations from historians

To choose a presidency, click on a numbered box or search by name. To see a historian’s annotation, click on a highlighted phrase.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending