Politics
Column: Why the Supreme Court will probably put Trump back on the ballot in Colorado and nationwide
More than any U.S. Supreme Court case in decades, former President Trump’s appeal of the Colorado decision disqualifying him from the state’s primary ballot combines huge political moment with a scarcity of guiding law. For the court, which announced last week that it would hear the case on a warp-speed schedule, that is a precarious combination that exposes it to accusations of political bias.
So how will the court rule? I think it will be loath to permit a patchwork result in which Trump appears on the ballot in some states but not in others. To avoid such a patchwork, a majority of the justices is likely to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection and is therefore ineligible for office under the 14th Amendment. And the court will probably do so in a way that also prevents other states from removing the former president from the ballot.
As the court arguably has in other landmark decisions, it may well act politically in the sense that it will be most concerned about the practical result. That’s different from saying that the decision will break down along party lines. A nakedly partisan outcome akin to the Bush vs. Gore opinion would be a disaster for the court’s already diminished reputation.
The majority could well consist of those most likely to share Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s concern for the court’s standing and hesitation to intrude on the election. Such a majority would be more likely to include justices open to institutionalist arguments, such as Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh, than far-right rebels Samuel J. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas. That kind of coalition might favor a rationale that is less than pristine but serves broader social and political goals.
An early sign of such a consensus is the court’s unanimous order accepting the case and setting an expedited timetable, with oral argument scheduled in a month. The later the court acts, the more intrusive and controversial its role will be.
The court also preserved maximum flexibility in taking the case. Instead of considering the limited legal questions presented by the Colorado Republican Party or the challengers to Trump’s qualification for the ballot, the justices accepted Trump’s broader question. That means that any of the seven or so bases for reversal set out in Trump’s petition are fair game.
It’s difficult at this point to imagine the court upholding the Colorado opinion and thereby also allowing each state to make its own determination as to whether the Republican front-runner appears on the ballot. I don’t think such an arrangement would be unconstitutional, but it would be an ugly outcome that would be laid directly at the court’s feet.
The Constitution does accord a significant role to the states in electing the president, so much so that the winner of the national popular vote has lost two of the last six elections. I don’t think the framers would have been bothered by the prospect of different states having different candidates on their presidential ballots. But they didn’t anticipate a national two-party system either.
In 2024, the social, cultural and political fact is that the presidential election is a fully national contest that will play out according to quaint and obscure state rules. For one of the two major-party candidates to be missing from some state ballots and not others could encourage even more Americans to refuse to recognize the election’s legitimacy. I think the court would regard that as abhorrent.
Moreover, it would be virtually impossible for the court to devise a one-size-fits-all solution that bans Trump from the ballot in every state. The court is not a fact-finding body, and this case doesn’t begin to present the sort of record from which it could conclude that Trump “engaged in insurrection” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The justices could find that Colorado’s determination was not in error under federal law, but that’s a far cry from ensuring the same result in every other state.
That’s why a majority of the justices is more likely to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court under a principle of federal law that also shuts down parallel efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in Maine, Massachusetts, Illinois and other states.
Trump’s petition provides the justices with several means of doing so, from finding fault with the Colorado court’s definition of “insurrection” to determining that the president is not an “officer” of the United States. All these means of reversing the Colorado decision have significant flaws. But given the political, legal and practical considerations before the court, I believe it will settle on one of them to avoid even messier consequences.
Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast. @harrylitman
Politics
Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
transcript
transcript
Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.
-
“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”
January 8, 2026
Politics
Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget.
“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening.
“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.”
The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”
SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE
President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.
CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE
This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.
Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.
The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)
Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.
Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders.
“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said.
“Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”
U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023. (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)
He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.
An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.
Politics
Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.
The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.
“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”
Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.
The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.
The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.
“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.
“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”
The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.
“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology2 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health4 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Iowa2 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska2 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment1 day agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios