Politics
‘A Day of Love’: How Trump Inverted the Violent History of Jan. 6
In two weeks, Donald J. Trump is to emerge from an arched portal of the United States Capitol to once again take the presidential oath of office. As the Inauguration Day ritual conveying the peaceful transfer of power unfolds, he will stand where the worst of the mayhem of Jan. 6, 2021, took place, largely in his name.
Directly behind Mr. Trump will be the metal-and-glass doors where protesters, inflamed by his lie that the 2020 election had been stolen from him, stormed the Capitol with clubs, chemical irritants and other weapons. To his left, the spot where roaring rioters and outnumbered police officers fought hand to hand. To his right, where the prostrate body of a dying woman was jostled in the bloody fray.
And before him, a dozen marble steps descending to a lectern adorned with the presidential seal. The same steps where, four years earlier, Trump flags were waved above the frenzied crowd and wielded like spears; where an officer was dragged facedown to be beaten with an American flag on a pole and another was pulled into the scrum to be kicked and stomped.
In the wake of the attack on the Capitol, Mr. Trump’s volatile political career seemed over, his incendiary words before the riot rattling the leaders of his own Republican Party. Myriad factors explain his stunning resurrection, but not least of them is how effectively he and his loyalists have laundered the history of Jan. 6, turning a political nightmare into a political asset.
What began as a strained attempt to absolve Mr. Trump of responsibility for Jan. 6 gradually took hold, as his allies in Congress and the media played down the attack and redirected blame to left-wing plants, Democrats and even the government. Violent rioters — prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned — somehow became patriotic martyrs.
This inverted interpretation defied what the country had watched unfold, but it neatly fit the persecution narrative that binds Mr. Trump to many of his faithful. Once he committed to running again for president, he doubled down on flipping the script about the riot and its blowback, including a congressional inquiry and two criminal indictments against him, as part of an orchestrated victimization.
That day was an American calamity. Lawmakers huddled for safety. Vice President Mike Pence eluded a mob shouting that he should be hanged. Several people died during and after the riot, including one protester by gunshot and four police officers by suicide, and more than 140 officers were injured in a protracted melee that nearly upended what should have been the routine certification of the electoral victory of Mr. Trump’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr.
But with his return to office, Mr. Trump now has the platform to further rinse and spin the Capitol attack into what he has called “a day of love.” He has vowed to pardon rioters in the first hour of his new administration, while his congressional supporters are pushing for criminal charges against those who investigated his actions on that chaotic day.
When asked about the reframing of the Capitol riot, and whether Mr. Trump accepts any responsibility for what unfolded on Jan. 6, his spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, instead referred in a statement to the “political losers” who tried to derail his career and asserted that “the mainstream media still refuses to report the truth about what happened that day.” She added, “The American people did not fall for the Left’s fear mongering over January 6th.”
The Jan. 6 tale that Mr. Trump tells is its own kind of replacement theory, one that covers over the marble-hard facts the way a blue carpet will cover those tainted Capitol steps on Inauguration Day.
The Seeds of Suspicion
What happened and why seemed beyond debate.
Hundreds of thousands of tips. Tens of thousands of hours of video footage. Thousands of seized cellphones. The attack on the Capitol was, after all, the largest digital crime scene in history, the total estimated cost of its aftermath exceeding $2.7 billion.
The Justice Department has experienced some setbacks in its criminal prosecutions — including a Supreme Court ruling that it overreached in using a controversial obstruction statute — but its success rate has been overwhelming. More than half of the nearly 1,600 defendants have pleaded guilty, while 200 more have been convicted after trial, resulting in sentences ranging from a few days in jail for misdemeanor trespassing to 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy.
The story told by many of the indictments begins with a mixed-message speech delivered before the riot by Mr. Trump in a park near the White House. After falsely claiming that the 2020 election had been stolen, he encouraged people to march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol, but reminded them that “we fight like hell.”
Mr. Trump retired to the White House, where he watched the televised violence and ignored advice to tell the mob to leave. Then, after sending two tweets calling for peaceful protest, he posted a video repeating his rigged-election falsehood and saying: “We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special.”
A follow-up tweet ended: “Remember this day forever!”
Condemnation came swiftly. As shaken Republican leaders denounced him and Democrats moved to impeach him for “incitement of insurrection,” a seemingly chastened Mr. Trump called the riot “a heinous attack on the United States Capitol.” In those early days, he referred to Jan. 6 as “the calamity at the Capitol” and warned that lawbreakers “will pay.”
The outgoing president called for national unity but declined to attend his successor’s inauguration. The Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him of incitement, but its leader, Mitch McConnell, declared him “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day” — a sentiment apparently shared by most Americans, with nearly 60 percent saying in polls that he should never hold office again.
But sand was already being thrown in the eyes of history.
Before the Capitol had even been secured, Representative Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona, was asserting on Twitter that the events had “all the hallmarks of Antifa provocation.” Hours later, the Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham was telling viewers that “there are some reports that antifa sympathizers may have been sprinkled throughout the crowd.” And by morning, Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, was claiming on the House floor that some rioters “were masquerading as Trump supporters and in fact were members of the violent terrorist group antifa.” (Mr. Gaetz would become President-elect Trump’s first choice for attorney general before being derailed by scandal.)
According to M.I.T. Technology Review, this fabrication was repeated online more than 400,000 times in the 24 hours after the Capitol attack, amplified by a cast of MAGA influencers, Republican officials and members of Mr. Trump’s family.
The former president remained mostly silent in the weeks that followed. But in a late March interview with Washington Post reporters that was not made public until months later, he provided an early hint of how he would frame the Jan. 6 attack.
The day he had previously called calamitous was now largely peaceful. The mob that stormed the Capitol had been “ushered in” by the police. And those who had rallied with him beforehand were a “loving crowd.”
A Deep-State Conspiracy Theory
Through the spring and summer of 2021, Mr. Trump’s Republican allies sought to sow doubt and blame others. It was as if Mr. McConnell, among other leading Republicans, had never publicly declared Mr. Trump responsible. As if the world had not seen what it had seen.
In early May, on the same day House Republicans stripped Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming of her leadership role for labeling Mr. Trump a threat to democracy, they used an Oversight Committee hearing to minimize the riot. Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina questioned whether all those rioters wearing Trump gear and shouting pro-Trump chants were truly Trump supporters, while Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia likened much of the trespassing to a “normal tourist visit.”
This benign interpretation of Jan. 6 gave way to a much more startling theory, posed in mid-June by the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, at the time perhaps the most-watched commentator in cable news: The riot had been a false-flag operation orchestrated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. Gaetz and another Republican loyalist, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, quickly seconded the deep-state conspiracy theory, while Mr. Gosar entered the article on which it was based — written by Darren Beattie, a former Trump speechwriter who had been fired for speaking at a conference beside white supremacists — into the Congressional Record.
Soon after, Mr. Trump broke his monthslong silence about Jan. 6. At an early July rally in Sarasota, Fla., he invoked the name of Ashli Babbitt, a pro-Trump rioter who had been fatally shot by a Capitol police officer while trying to breach the House floor, where lawmakers and staff members had sought safety. She was fast becoming a martyr to the cause.
“Shot, boom,” Mr. Trump said. “There was no reason for it. Who shot Ashli Babbitt?”
The former president also referred to the jailed rioters. Floating the specter of a justice system prejudiced against conservatives, he questioned why “so many people are still in jail over Jan. 6” when antifa and Black Lives Matter hadn’t paid a price for the violent protests that followed the murder of a Black man, George Floyd, by a white Minneapolis police officer in 2020.
The fog machine of conspiracy was turned up a few notches that fall, when the Fox Nation streaming service released “Patriot Purge,” a three-part series in which Mr. Carlson expanded on his specious contention that the Capitol attack was a government plot to discredit Mr. Trump and persecute conservatives.
The widely denounced claim was deemed so outrageous that two Fox News contributors, Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, resigned in protest. In a scathing blog post, they wrote that the program was a hodgepodge of “factual inaccuracies, half-truths, deceptive imagery and damning omissions.”
Mr. Carlson’s documentary, they wrote, “creates an alternative history of January 6, contradicted not just by common sense, not just by the testimony and on-the-record statements of many participants, but by the reporting of the news division of Fox News itself.”
Martyrs and Vigils
Amid the conspiratorial swirl of antifa agitators and deep-state plots, a related narrative was gaining traction: the glorification of those who had attacked the Capitol. Instead of marauders, vandals and aggressors, they were now political prisoners, hostages, martyrs. Patriots.
This movement’s energy radiated from a troubled detention center in Washington where a few dozen men charged with attacking police officers and committing other violent offenses were held. A defiant esprit de corps developed among them in the so-called Patriot Wing, where inmates in prison-issue orange gathered every night to sing the national anthem.
Outside the razor-wire walls, their supporters kept vigil in a spot dubbed the “Freedom Corner.” Led by Ms. Babbitt’s mother, among others, they set out snacks, flew American flags and live-streamed phone conversations with inmates.
Sympathy that might have been reserved for the injured police officers was directed instead to those who had assaulted them. And Mr. Trump — whose Jan. 6 actions were now being investigated by the Justice Department and a bipartisan House select committee — emerged in 2022 as their No. 1 sympathizer.
At a mid-January rally in Florence, Ariz., he described the Jan. 6 defendants as persecuted political prisoners. Later that month, in Conroe, Texas, he promised that if he was re-elected, and if pardons were required, “we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly.”
Mr. Trump’s counteroffensive began taking shape. The House select committee, whose members included Ms. Cheney, became in his words the “unselect committee” and the prevailing narrative of Jan. 6 as an insurrection “a lot of crap.”
One of his most repeated contentions was that the Democratic House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, had rejected his recommendation to have 10,000 soldiers present on Jan. 6. But subsequent investigations demonstrated that it was his own military advisers, and not Ms. Pelosi, who blocked the idea, concerned with both the optics of armed soldiers at a political protest and the possibility that Mr. Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act to place the troops under his direct command.
“There is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol,” the acting defense secretary, Christopher Miller, later told investigators. Doing so, he said, could have created “the greatest constitutional crisis probably since the Civil War.”
As the select committee began holding hearings in early June 2022, Mr. Trump used speeches and his social media platform, Truth Social, to clap back at the damaging evidence and testimony. One post read: “The so-called ‘Rush on the Capitol’ was not caused by me, it was caused by a Rigged and Stolen Election!”
In a speech in Nashville that month, he dismissed the riot as a “simple protest” that “got out of hand,” again floated the possibility of pardons and furthered the false-flag theory by mentioning Ray Epps, a protester falsely portrayed by Mr. Carlson on Fox News and Republicans in Congress as a government plant who had stage-managed the riot.
His efforts seemed to be working. By mid-2022, an NBC News poll found that fewer than half of Americans still considered Mr. Trump “solely” or “mainly” responsible for Jan. 6.
For some supporters, though, Mr. Trump was not doing enough. In the late summer, he agreed to meet two advocates for the Jan. 6 defendants at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.: Julie Kelly, a conservative journalist who had written skeptically about the Capitol attack, and Cynthia Hughes, a founder of the Patriot Freedom Project, which supported the inmates’ families. Ms. Hughes was also an aunt of Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a professed Hitler fanboy who had spent time in the Patriot Wing.
They told Mr. Trump that the defendants and their families felt abandoned by him, Ms. Kelly later recalled, and that some of the federal judges in Washington he had appointed were among the worst in their handling of Jan. 6 cases.
These jurists had earned the ire of people like Ms. Kelly by repeatedly rejecting arguments that the defendants could not get fair trials in liberal Washington or had been unduly prosecuted for their pro-Trump politics. The judges also knocked down the contention that nonviolent rioters should not have been charged at all, ruling that everyone in the mob, “no matter how modestly behaved,” contributed to the chaos at the Capitol.
After his meeting with the women, Mr. Trump donated $10,000 to Ms. Hughes’s organization and told a conservative radio host that if he was elected, there would be full pardons and “an apology to many.” Days later, Ms. Hughes was given a speaking role at a Trump rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Ms. Hughes’s Patriot Freedom Project closed out 2022 with a fund-raising holiday party at the Capitol Hill Hilton, in sight of the riot scene. Children received gifts, inmates spoke to the crowd from jail and tearful family members shared their hardships. There was also a surprise video message of encouragement from Mr. Trump, who had recently announced his candidacy.
Then, just before Christmas, the House select committee released its final report, based largely on testimony from those inside Mr. Trump’s orbit. It accused him of repeatedly lying about a stolen election and summoning the angry mob that thwarted a peaceful transition between administrations.
In the report’s foreword, Ms. Cheney recalled how her great-great-grandfather answered Abraham Lincoln’s call to defend the union by joining the 21st Ohio Volunteer Infantry. He fought for four years, she wrote, for the same essential principle the committee was empaneled to protect: the peaceful transfer of power.
The Candidate and the Prison Choir
Perhaps the moment when Mr. Trump and his allies fully embraced their alternate version of history came on March 3, 2023, when a new song appeared on major streaming platforms.
The song, “Justice for All,” featured Mr. Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance while the men of the Patriot Wing, now billing themselves as the J6 Prison Choir, sang the national anthem. In other words, it was a collaboration between a man seeking the Republican presidential nomination and about 20 men charged with attacking the nerve center of the republic.
Mr. Trump recorded his contribution at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, while the choir was recorded with a phone in the Washington jail. The song — a fund-raising effort that the Trump loyalist Kash Patel, now the president-elect’s nominee to head the F.B.I., helped produce — concludes with a defiant echo of the “U.S.A.!” chants that resounded during the Jan. 6 attack.
The first Trump campaign rally for the 2024 election took place three weeks later, in Waco, Texas, where a deadly standoff between federal agents and a religious cult in 1993 became a far-right touchstone. Before launching into complaints about persecution and promises of retribution, the candidate placed his hand over his heart for the playing of what an announcer called “the No. 1 song” on iTunes and Amazon, featuring Mr. Trump “and the J6 Choir.”
Mr. Trump’s version of the attack on the Capitol had firmly taken hold, at least within his party. A YouGov poll at the time found that most Republicans believed the events of Jan. 6 reflected “legitimate political discourse.”
In August 2023, Mr. Trump was indicted twice on charges of interfering with the 2020 election results: at the state level, for illegally seeking to overturn the results of the election in Georgia, which he had narrowly lost; and at the federal level, for conspiring to impede the Jan. 6 certification of Mr. Biden’s election.
A subsequent court filing by Jack Smith, the special counsel leading the federal investigation, cited Mr. Trump’s steadfast endorsement of the rioters and of the prison choir, “many of whose criminal history and/or crimes on January 6 were so violent that their pretrial release would pose a danger to the public.” The former president, it continued, “has financially supported and celebrated these offenders — many of whom assaulted law enforcement on January 6 — by promoting and playing their recording of the national anthem at political rallies and calling them ‘hostages.’”
All true. Still, Mr. Trump continued to play “Justice for All” at rallies and at Mar-a-Lago, spread his rigged-election lie, drop intimations of false-flag conspiracies, refer to those who stormed the Capitol as patriots — and, now, transformed the indictments into further fuel for his persecution narrative.
In so many ways, Jan. 6 had become part of his brand — a brand in which an attack on the symbol of American democracy became a defense of that same democracy: a blow against political thugs and closet communists, deep-state plots and an unjust justice system.
A part of the brand that, in November, helped Mr. Trump win election as the 47th president of the United States.
Promising Pardons — and Payback
Once he takes office, Mr. Trump will be positioned to finish refashioning Jan. 6 as a modern Lost Cause of the Confederacy.
With the help of Republican loyalists, the Senate acquitted him of incitement at his impeachment trial. The Supreme Court he had helped mold rejected an attempt to keep him off the ballot under a constitutional ban against insurrectionists from holding office. And his legal maneuvering — to delay, delay, delay — succeeded: In the days after the election, Mr. Smith, the special counsel, dropped his election-subversion case, adhering to a Justice Department policy not to prosecute a sitting president.
An emboldened Mr. Trump has already indicated that his presidential agenda will include payback for those who declared him responsible for the Capitol attack. He has said that Mr. Smith “should be thrown out of the country,” and that Ms. Cheney and other leaders of the House select committee — “one of the greatest political scams in history,” his spokeswoman, Ms. Leavitt, said — should “go to jail,” without providing evidence to warrant such extreme measures.
At the same time, Mr. Trump’s repeated vows to pardon those implicated in the Capitol riot, an act of erasure that would validate their claims of political persecution, has electrified the Jan. 6 community of families, defendants and felons. On election night, those keeping vigil outside the Washington jail celebrated with champagne.
Even though Mr. Trump has not specified whom he would pardon, many Jan. 6 participants are anticipating a general amnesty for everyone involved. One defendant, charged with attacking police officers with a baseball bat, even promoted an A.I. video of inmates in orange jumpsuits parading triumphantly out of jailhouse doors.
Many defendants have requested delays in their court proceedings because, they say, the imminent pardons will render their cases moot. Among those employing this argument was Philip Sean Grillo, convicted of several misdemeanors after entering the Capitol through a broken window and later boasting in a recording that “we stormed the Capitol. We shut it down! We did it!”
But to Mr. Grillo’s misfortune, the federal judge handling his case was Royce C. Lamberth, 81, a no-nonsense former prosecutor who had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Judge Lamberth not only rejected Mr. Grillo’s request for a delay, he filed a court document to “clear the air” and “remind ourselves what really happened.”
With clinical precision, the judge recalled how an angry mob invaded and occupied the Capitol with intentions to “thwart the peaceful transfer of power that is the centerpiece of our Constitution and the cornerstone of our republican legacy”; how they ignored directives to turn back and desist; how some engaged in “pitched battle” with the police, “stampeding through and over the officers.”
“They told the world that the election was stolen, a claim for which no evidence has ever emerged,” the judge wrote. “They told the world that they were there to put a stop to the transfer of power, even if that meant ransacking, emptying, and desecrating our country’s most hallowed sites. Most disturbingly, they told the world that particular elected officials who were present at the Capitol that day had to be removed, hurt, or even killed.”
The country came “perilously close” to letting the orderly transfer of power slip away, Judge Lamberth wrote. He knew this, he said, because he and his colleagues had presided over hundreds of trials, read hundreds of guilty pleas, heard from hundreds of law enforcement witnesses — “and viewed thousands of hours of video footage attesting to the bedlam.”
With that, Judge Lamberth ordered Mr. Grillo to be taken immediately into custody to begin a sentence of one year in prison.
As he was being handcuffed, the Jan. 6 rioter taunted the veteran judge by saying it didn’t matter: He would be pardoned anyway — by a man who will soon benefit from the peaceful transfer of power while standing on a blue carpet covering an old crime scene.
Dylan Freedman contributed reporting.
Politics
US submarine sinks Iranian warship by torpedo in a first since World War II
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A U.S. submarine sank a prized Iranian warship by torpedo, the first such sinking of an enemy ship since World War II, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Wednesday morning.
Hegseth joined Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine at the Pentagon to provide an update to reporters on “Operation Epic Fury” in Iran.
“An American submarine sunk an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters,” Hegseth said. “Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. Quiet death. The first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War Two. Like in that war, back when we were still the War Department. We are fighting to win.”
Caine said that an Iranian vessel was “effectively neutralized” in a Navy “fast attack” using a single Mark 48 torpedo. He added that the U.S. Navy achieved “immediate effect, sending the warship to the bottom of the sea.”
WATCH HEGSETH’S ANNOUNCEMENT:
Hegseth said that the U.S. Navy sank the Iranian warship, the Soleimani. The flagship was named for Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian military officer who served in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who the U.S. killed in a January 2020 drone strike during President Donald Trump’s first term.
“The Iranian Navy rests at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. Combat ineffective, decimated, destroyed, defeated. Pick your adjective,” Hegseth said. “In fact, last night we sunk their prize ship, the Soleimani. Looks like POTUS got him twice. Their navy, not a factor. Pick your adjective. It is no more.”
This map shows U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iranian naval forces as of March 1. (Fox News)
Hegseth also told reporters at the briefing that the U.S. and Israel will soon achieve “complete control” over Iranian airspace after Iran’s missile capabilities were drastically diminished in the four days of fighting.
US ‘WINNING DECISIVELY’ AGAINST IRAN, WILL ACHIEVE ‘COMPLETE CONTROL’ OF AIRSPACE WITHIN DAYS, HEGSETH SAYS
“More bombers and more fighters are arriving just today and now, with complete control of the skies, we will be using 500 pound, one thousand pound and 2,000 pound laser-guided precision gravity bombs, of which we have a nearly unlimited stockpile,” he said.
The war has killed more than 1,000 people in Iran and dozens in Lebanon, while U.S. officials said six American troops were killed in a fatal drone strike in Kuwait.
Thousands of travelers have been left stranded across the Middle East.
This map shows security and travel updates for Americans regarding countries in the Middle East region. (Fox News)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Caine told reporters that the U.S. military is helping thousands of Americans stranded in the Middle East after the U.S. State Department urged citizens to leave more than a dozen countries.
Fox News Digital’s Ashley Carnahan contributed to this report.
Politics
Sen. Padilla preps for Trump trying to seize control of elections via emergency order
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is preparing for President Trump to declare a national emergency in order to seize control of this year’s midterm elections from the states, including by bracing his Senate colleagues for a vote in which they would be forced to either co-sign on the power grab or resist it.
In the wake of reporting last week that conservative activists with connections to the White House were circulating such an order, Padilla sent a letter to his Senate colleagues Friday stating that any such order would be “wildly illegal and unconstitutional,” and would no doubt face “extremely strict scrutiny” in the courts.
“Nevertheless, if the President does escalate his unprecedented assault on our democracy by declaring an election-related emergency, I will swiftly introduce a privileged resolution [and] force a vote in the Senate to terminate the fake emergency,” wrote Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
Padilla wrote that such an order — which could possibly “include banning mail-in voting, eliminating major voting registration methods, voter purges, and/or new document barriers for registering to vote and voting” — would clearly go beyond Trump’s authority.
“Put simply, no President has the power under the Constitution or any law to take over elections, and no declaration or order can create one out of thin air,” Padilla wrote.
The same day Padilla sent his letter, Trump was asked whether he was considering declaring a national emergency around the midterms. “Who told you that?” he asked — before saying he was not considering such an order.
The White House referred The Times to that exchange when asked Tuesday for comment on Padilla’s letter.
If Trump did declare such an emergency, a “privileged resolution,” as Padilla proposed, would require the full Senate to vote on the record on whether or not to terminate it — forcing any Senate allies of the president to own the policy politically, along with him.
Experts say there is no evidence that U.S. elections are significantly affected or swung by widespread fraud or foreign interference, despite robust efforts by Trump and his allies for years to find it.
Nonetheless, Trump has been emphatic that such fraud is occurring, particularly in blue states such as California that allow for mail-in ballots and do not have strict voter ID laws. He and others in his administration have asserted, again without evidence, that large numbers of noncitizen residents are casting votes and that others are “harvesting” ballots out of the mail and filling them out in bulk.
Soon after taking office, Trump issued an executive order purporting to require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship before registering and barring the counting of mail-in ballots received after election day, but it was largely blocked by the courts.
Trump’s loyalist Justice Department sued red and blue states across the country for their full voter rolls, but those efforts also have largely been blocked, including in California. The FBI also raided an elections office in Georgia that has been the focus of Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.
Trump is also pushing for the passage of the SAVE Act, a voter ID bill passed by the House, but it has stalled in the Senate.
In recent weeks, Trump has expressed frustration that his demands around voting security have not translated into changes in blue state policies ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, where his shrinking approval could translate into major gains for Democrats.
Last month, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, “I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future. There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!”
Then, last week, the Washington Post reported that a draft executive order being circulated by activists with ties to Trump suggests that unproven claims of Chinese interference in the 2020 election could be used as a pretext to declare an elections emergency granting Trump sweeping authority to unilaterally institute the changes he wants to see in state-run elections.
Election experts said the Constitution is clear that states control and run elections, not with the executive branch.
Democrats have widely denounced any federal takeover of elections by Trump. And some Republicans have expressed similar concerns, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who chairs the Senate rules committee.
In the Wall Street Journal last year, McConnell warned against Trump or any Republican president asserting sweeping authority to control elections, in part because Democrats would then be empowered to claim similar authority if and when they retake power.
McConnell’s office referred The Times to that Journal opinion piece when asked about the circulating emergency order and Padilla’s resolution.
Padilla’s office said his resolution would be introduced in response to an emergency declaration by Trump, but hoped it wouldn’t be necessary.
“Instead of trying to evade accountability at the ballot box,” Padilla wrote, “the President should focus on the needs of Americans struggling to pay for groceries, health care, housing and other everyday needs and put these illegal and unconstitutional election orders in the trash can where they belong.”
Politics
Trump Has Been Sued 198 Times for Withholding Funding. It Hasn’t Stopped Him.
Plaintiff Council for Opportunity in Education
Defendant U.S. Department of Education
Filed in the District of Columbia on Oct. 14, 2025
Injunction
Plaintiff Dallas County, Tex.
Defendant Kennedy
Filed in the District of Columbia on Dec. 5, 2025
Plaintiff Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Defendant Kennedy Jr.
Filed in the District of Rhode Island on July 21, 2025
injunction
Plaintiff Colorado
Defendant Department of Health and Human Services
Filed in the District of Rhode Island on April 1, 2025
injunction
Plaintiff Housing Authority of the County of San Diego
Defendant Turner
Filed in the Northern District of California on Oct. 15, 2025
injunction
Plaintiff National Alliance to End Homelessness
Defendant Department of Housing and Urban Development
Filed in the District of Rhode Island on Dec. 1, 2025
injunction
Plaintiff Washington
Defendant Federal Emergency Management Agency
Filed in the District of Massachusetts on July 16, 2025
lost
Plaintiff Arizona
Defendant Environmental Protection Agency
Filed in the Western District of Washington on Oct. 16, 2025
Plaintiff Open Technology Fund
Defendant Lake
Filed in the District of Columbia on March 20, 2025
injunction
Plaintiff National Public Radio
Defendant Trump
Filed in the District of Columbia on May 27, 2025
Plaintiff San Francisco Unified School District
Defendant AmeriCorps
Filed in the Northern District of California on March 10, 2025
injunction
Plaintiff Maine
Defendant National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Filed in the District of Maine on June 17, 2025
Plaintiff Rhode Island Latino Arts
Defendant National Endowment for the Arts
Filed in the District of Rhode Island on March 6, 2025
lost
President Trump has tried to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding to coerce states, punish opponents, remake programs and impose his views. His targets have repeatedly sued to stop him, and the courts have repeatedly rebuked him — only for the president to try again and again.
Take just these seven cases, all of them tied to the administration’s efforts to block funds from “sanctuary” communities, those that restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Last February, a coalition of cities and counties sued over executive orders directing agencies to shut off such funds.
Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco
Defendant Trump
Filed in the Northern District of California on Feb. 7, 2025
injunction
A judge issued a preliminary injunction, halting those directives while the case proceeded.
The same day, the Department of Transportation told communities they must cooperate with immigration enforcement to get federal transportation dollars.
Twenty states, led by California, soon sued …
Plaintiff California
Defendant Department of Transportation
Filed in the District of Rhode Island on May 13, 2025
lost
… and the administration lost in district court.
The Department of Homeland Security tried to withhold emergency management funds. Another lawsuit followed …
Plaintiff Illinois
Defendant FEMA
Filed in the District of Rhode Island on May 13, 2025
lost
… and the administration lost.
Then D.H.S. tried reducing counterterrorism grants to sanctuary states instead …
Plaintiff Illinois
Defendant Noem
Filed in the District of Rhode Island on Sept. 29, 2025
lost
… and again, the administration lost.
In the past year, funds for housing, transit, health and public safety have all been conditioned on cooperation with immigration.
Plaintiff King County
Defendant Turner
Filed in the Western District of Washington on May 2, 2025
injunction
Plaintiff Fresno
Defendant Turner
Filed in the Northern District of California on Aug. 20, 2025
injunction
Plaintiff Chicago
Defendant Department of Justice
Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 12, 2025
injunction
Injunctions regularly followed.
These are among 198 lawsuits in the past year identified by The New York Times that challenge how Mr. Trump has leveraged federal funding to carry out his agenda without the consent of Congress. And they reflect one remarkable feature of the campaign: It has proceeded undeterred by losses in court.
With that persistence, the administration has been hammering away at a new kind of reality in Washington, one where the president wields far more control over spending, and where his opponents aren’t entitled to the services of their federal government.
“Anyone in the country who relies on federal dollars is depending on the president to get that money,” said Matthew Lawrence, a law professor at Emory University. “And that’s a new thing.”
The president has threatened money to states that don’t adopt his policies, universities that don’t bend to his will, hospitals that don’t alter their services, school districts that don’t abandon diversity efforts, nonprofits that don’t embrace his gender views, and researchers who study the wrong subjects.
These moves have tested whether Congress, granted the “power of the purse,” still holds the ultimate authority over spending. And they have challenged the courts with a flood of cases — 37 separate suits from the state of California; four from the Association of American Universities on virtually the same question; one from King County, Wash., that has grown to include as plaintiffs 75 communities and agencies.
“You would think there would be some conditioning here: You do an action, you get sued, you lose, maybe you don’t do that action anymore,” said Rob Bonta, who as California’s attorney general has brought many of those suits. “He’s continued to repeat offend. And repeat lose.”
The administration’s approach has amounted to “a game of three-card monte” in the courts, said Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan. Each injunction covers the parties suing and the specific programs at issue, but doesn’t necessarily stop the administration from blocking funds to other groups it disfavors. The result, Mr. Bagenstos said: “‘Oh, well, you think I can’t do this thing over there? Well I’m going to do it over here.’”
Presidents have long sought to steer funding to advance their priorities, designing programs with Congress or awarding competitive grants to communities that emphasize certain ideas. But the Trump administration has gone much further: terminating en masse funds that were already awarded; imposing new conditions on future grants that flout federal rule making; and blocking money to whole programs and agencies created by Congress.
The groups that have sued represent a fraction of everyone affected; many have lacked the means or the will to go to court. But these 198 cases, as of the beginning of March, have pried open a public view into the breadth of the administration’s tactics. And one year in, they have produced a lopsided record of rulings.
When plaintiffs have sought immediate relief, district court judges have temporarily blocked the administration’s actions 79 percent of the time, signaling plaintiffs’ likely success on the merits. In the 26 instances where district judges have issued partial or final rulings, the administration lost 23.
Planned Parenthood of Greater New York v. Department of Health and Human Services
Just because a pronouncement comes from the president does not make it true, even if expressed in the form of an executive order, and even then, does not supersede the law.
lost
American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education
By leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems.
lost
Michigan v. Noem
None of this appears consistent with Congressional intent or FEMA’s mission.
lost
The administration declined to comment on the record. But a White House official authorized to describe the strategy said the Trump administration is restoring power to the presidency that previous presidents have shied away from, while tapping that power to prevent fraud and steward taxpayer dollars. The groups bringing all these lawsuits, that person said, are the ones using the courts in a hostile campaign to hamstring the president.
The administration has notably walked away from some defeats without appealing them. But it is counting on a better record before appeals court judges, as has been the case more broadly. Among cases it has appealed, appellate courts have reversed or paused orders against the administration in about 40 percent of their rulings, often with judges appointed by Mr. Trump in his favor.
But even when it is losing in court, plaintiffs’ attorneys and legal scholars said, the administration may still find it is winning on its own terms.
‘Undeserving recipients’
Alongside that first sanctuary cities directive, early executive orders outlining the president’s core agenda aimed to end all “diversity, equity and inclusion” in the government, to eradicate “gender ideology,” to reverse the “green new deal,” and to enforce “election integrity.” All of them proposed leveraging federal funds to do it.
These cases show the administration pulling that lever in numerous ways.
It has tried to set conditions with no clear relationship to program goals (like immigration requirements for highway funds). It has threatened funding to force states to share information (voter rolls, food aid lists). It has told grantees they must pledge to comply with orders the president hasn’t issued yet. And it has invoked criminal and financial penalties if they break those pledges.
It has terminated even small sums, targeting with laser precision opponents of the president (who then sued):
The American Bar Association lost $3.2 million in domestic violence training grants after the administration attacked the group.
Plaintiff American Bar Association
Defendant Department of Justice
Filed in the District of Columbia on April 23, 2025
injunction
The American Academy of Pediatrics lost nearly $12 million in grants in apparent retaliation for its advocacy of vaccines and gender-affirming care.
Plaintiff American Academy of Pediatrics
Defendant Department of Health and Human Services
Filed in the District of Columbia on Dec. 24, 2025
injunction
Maine lost access to support for school meals as Gov. Janet Mills was fighting with the president over transgender athletes.
Plaintiff Maine
Defendant Department of Agriculture
Filed in the District of Maine on April 7, 2025
injunction
The government backed down with the American Bar Association and Maine after judges issued initial rulings, only to turn its focus elsewhere.
“You can see that the government’s posture is essentially: Do the thing that’s going to make the White House happy, or get the press release about sticking it to trans people,” said Kevin Love Hubbard, a former D.O.J. attorney who represented the government before leaving in August. Agencies are doing that, he said, “without thinking about then having to go into court.”
Today, he is suing the government in several funding cases with the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island.
Most of these nearly 200 cases are about disfavored categories of recipients like sanctuary jurisdictions, Harvard researchers or organizations serving transgender people.
“We are the undeserving recipients, at least in the mind of our current administration,” said Leesa Manion, the prosecuting attorney in King County, Wash., which encompasses Seattle. “The goal all along was to ensure that we — the undesirables — do not get our fair share. Whether it works or doesn’t work, if that’s your overarching goal, you just keep evolving your technique.”
The administration is now increasingly targeting blue states as such a category, too.
That began during the government shutdown last October, when the White House budget director Russell Vought announced the administration would cancel nearly $8 billion in energy projects in 16 states — all where voters had supported Kamala Harris in 2024.
A small group of grantees, including the city of St. Paul, Minn., sued in response.
Plaintiff St. Paul, Minnesota
Defendant Wright
Filed in the District of Columbia on Nov. 10, 2025
lost
In January, the administration lost in district court, where a judge said it had violated the Constitution.
But officials were already preparing other cuts to blue states. H.H.S. froze $10 billion in child care and family assistance funds to five states. The states sued …
Plaintiff New York
Defendant Administration for Children and Families
Filed in the Southern District of New York on Jan. 8, 2026
injunction
… and a judge issued an injunction.
The D.O.T. suspended funding to the $16 billion Gateway Tunnel project connecting New Jersey and New York. Both states sued …
Plaintiff New Jersey
Defendant Department of Transportation
Filed in the Southern District of New York on Feb. 3, 2026
injunction
… and secured another injunction.
Even after those setbacks, in early February the administration told Congress it would cut more than $600 million in public health grants to four blue states. They sued …
Plaintiff Illinois
Defendant Vought
Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 11, 2026
injunction
… and the next day, a judge issued another injunction in the form of a temporary restraining order.
Still, last week, the administration said it would withhold about $250 million in Medicaid funds from Minnesota (prompting another lawsuit).
These moves, citing a mix of fraud and immigration policies, follow the president’s vow to block all funding to sanctuary jurisdictions — a group, under the D.O.J.’s definition, that could encompass one-third of the U.S. population.
“They can sue us and maybe they’ll win,” the president said in January. “But we’re not giving money to sanctuary cities anymore.”
Arbitrary and capricious
At stake in many cases are weighty constitutional principles: the separation of powers; the right to due process when the government says grantees have done something wrong; the First Amendment protections for organizations to advocate their views without government retaliation.
In the St. Paul suit, a district judge, Amit P. Mehta, ruled in January for the first time in one of these cases that the administration had violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause by singling out states for their partisan lean. During the litigation, the government didn’t deny doing that. Rather, it argued it was allowed to.
St. Paul, Minnesota v. Wright
Defendants freely admit that they made grant-termination decisions primarily — if not exclusively — based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024. There is no rational relationship between that classification and defendants’ stated governmental interest.
lost
But that ruling covered only seven canceled grants worth about $27.5 million out of the nearly $8 billion total terminated. Now a coalition of 13 states is suing with the same constitutional argument in a new case about the same cuts.
The constant that is running through most of these cases, however, is the more mundane-sounding Administrative Procedure Act. That 1946 law says that the federal government must be reasoned and document its thinking according to transparent rules — in short, that it shouldn’t be slapdash and secretive.
These cases are full of examples of it doing just that. When the Department of Homeland Security tried last year to reduce counterterrorism grants to sanctuary states, the agency appeared to arrive at the lower award sums by simply lopping digits off the original values.
Illinois v. Noem
Neither a law degree nor a degree in mathematics is required to deduce that no plausible, rational formula could produce this result.
lost
Officials have sent out directives with copy-and-pasted typos, termination letters without agency letterhead and bare explanations with boilerplate rationale.
“You had literally grants for millions of dollars being canceled in a single vague paragraph: ‘This no longer comports with administration priorities, thank you very much,’” said Claudia Polsky, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who has led a class-action lawsuit among University of California researchers that has restored, for now, at least a thousand grants worth about a billion dollars.
The administration has given grantees new mandates — and prohibitions — so vague that they haven’t known how to comply.
“‘Promote gender ideology’ — what does that mean?” said Maria Corona, the head of the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which has challenged new conditions on grants. “When you’re talking about ‘violence against women,’ in the language itself we’re already talking about a gender issue.”
Last February, the National Institutes of Health issued a seismic policy change on a Friday night, to take effect the following Monday, slashing payments to universities for research overhead, drawing several lawsuits.
Plaintiff Massachusetts
Defendant National Institutes of Health
Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025
lost
Plaintiff Association of American Medical Colleges
Defendant National Institutes of Health
Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025
lost
Plaintiff Association of American Universities
Defendant Department of Health and Human Services
Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025
lost
In April, the administration lost these cases, consolidated under one judge (an appeals court upheld the decision this year).
But after the district court ruling, the Department of Energy, followed by the National Science Foundation and then the Department of Defense, each rolled out an identical policy.
Plaintiff Association of American Universities
Defendant Department of Energy
Filed in the District of Massachusetts on April 14, 2025
lost
Plaintiff Association of American Universities
Defendant National Science Foundation
Filed in the District of Massachusetts on May 5, 2025
lost
Plaintiff Association of American Universities
Defendant Department of Defense
Filed in the District of Massachusetts on June 16, 2025
lost
As these cases accumulated, so did the judges’ irritation.
Association of American Universities v. Department of Defense
The Court does not write upon a blank slate but instead follows three other courts in this district who have come to similar conclusions with respect to different federal agencies’ attempts to enact virtually identical policies. Notably, defendants ignored these obviously relevant — and at least reasonable — analyses before adopting this policy.
lost
Success for the administration has seldom involved winning on the merits. Rather, the administration has argued in most of these cases that district judges have no business hearing them at all. Cases seeking money, it says, belong instead in the Court of Federal Claims, a specialized court dedicated to financial contract disputes with the government.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett breathed life into that argument, concurring in a preliminary ruling last summer that surprised some legal experts. Her opinion — suggesting policies should be litigated in district court, while payouts resulting from them belong in the Court of Federal Claims — has further complicated these cases. So has the Supreme Court’s ruling last year ending nationwide injunctions.
Winning while losing
By the time grantees have gone to court, they have already lost much. Researchers have halted studies. Nonprofits have laid off staff. The core expectation that the government is a reliable partner has already been undercut.
“The result is a corrosive uncertainty that undermines the basic functioning of government,” said Jacob Leibenluft, a former official in the Biden White House budget office.
That uncertainty sets in the moment money isn’t on time, or when grantees start to think it won’t be in the future. Other changes take root, too: Grantees rethink what’s in their mission statements; professors shift what they teach.
American Association of University Professors v. Trump
Numerous U.C. faculty and staff have submitted declarations describing how defendants’ actions have already chilled speech throughout the U.C. system.
injunction
The administration is advancing these changes even when it’s losing particular funding cases in court. And it has successfully blocked money to groups who haven’t sued, further entrenching the president’s expanded power over spending.
Whether this dynamic sticks depends as much on Congress as on the courts. If legislators were more actively guarding programs they had funded themselves, many of these lawsuits likely wouldn’t exist.
New York v. Trump
The interaction of the three co-equal branches of government is an intricate, delicate and sophisticated balance — but it is crucial to our form of constitutional governance. Here, the Executive put itself above Congress.
injunction
In rare cases, Republicans in Congress have pushed back against the administration and been able to reverse billions in cuts far more quickly than courts could, including from after-school programs and mental health and addiction treatment.
For most programs targeted by the administration, however, Republicans have publicly said little, and that’s unlikely to change as the president now targets blue states more explicitly. Republican and Democratic appropriators have together quietly tucked some new guardrails into spending bills this year. But it is Democrats, primarily, who have spoken up for the larger principle that lawmakers set the terms of federal spending — not the president.
“We have to guard that with our lives,” said Rosa DeLauro, the top Democratic appropriator in the House. The alternative, she said, is that funding becomes a tool to silence dissent. “‘Don’t speak out — or I’ll cancel your grant.’”
Absent bipartisan clamor in Congress, cases like King County v. Turner grind on. The case was brought last May by eight local governments challenging new conditions on housing and transportation grants. Then they added H.H.S. as a defendant. And 23 more local governments and transit and housing agencies joined as plaintiffs. Then another 29 came on board. Then 15 more. Each one has had to explain the harms it has faced. The judge has had to review each claim, alongside the details of dozens of grant programs, while crafting what are now four successive injunctions. All that is just one lawsuit.
“Should we have to do that 200 times, 300 times?” said Erin Overbey, the general counsel with the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. “What’s the number where we reach critical mass?”
-
World7 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts7 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO7 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Oregon5 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Florida3 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Maryland3 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Wisconsin2 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin