Politics
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
‘ShamWow Guy’ reveals what is motivating him to run for Congress: ‘This woke mess won’t clean itself’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
EXCLUSIVE: Vince Offer Shlomi, more commonly known to the masses as the “ShamWow Guy,” is running for Congress in Texas as an anti-establishment Republican vowing to “clean the swamp.”
If elected, Shlomi, who is beloved for his high-energy late-night ShamWow and “Slap Chop” commercials, has said he will “destroy wokeism,” quipping on his campaign website, “This woke mess won’t clean itself.”
In a recent ad, Shlomi, 61, knocked 84-year-old incumbent Republican Rep. John Carter’s cognitive ability as “worse than Biden,” saying, “vote for me, a guy who’s not half dead.”
Despite President Donald Trump endorsing Carter for re-election, Shlomi believes he would be a better ally in Congress for the president. He suggested Carter is no longer up for the job, likening his continued presence in the House of Representatives to a form of elder abuse.
“He’s not a fighter,” said Shlomi, adding, “It’s not that he’s old, but his capacity is lacking and Trump doesn’t know that.”
TEXAS DEMOCRAT BLASTED FOR TELLING LATINO, BLACK, ASIAN PEOPLE TO UNITE AGAINST ‘OPPRESSOR,’ ‘TAKE OVER’ US
Left: Rep. John Carter, R-Texas. Right: Media personality and Republican congressional candidate Vince Shlomi “ShamWow.” (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images; Vince Shlomi Campaign)
After years in the media world, Shlomi said he decided to break into politics after “seeing the decline of the civilization.”
“I’m seeing people not standing up to things. Not thinking about God … kind of afraid, they’re kind of intimidated, walking on eggshells,” he explained. “I feel that we need to fight a little bit stronger on just the commonsense American value ideas.”
“I want to bring wholesomeness back to America,” he said.
He also framed his candidacy as standing up to the GOP establishment, something he believes has already put a target on his back.
He believes that “someone” in the GOP deleted his nickname from the ballot to reduce his name recognition. Candidates using nicknames on the ballot is very common but nicknames tied to brand names or products are rarer.
CONSERVATIVE FIREBRAND VOWS TO PURGE ‘RINOS’ IN BATTLE TO REPLACE RETIRING VERN BUCHANAN IN OPEN FLORIDA SEAT
Vince Offer Shlomi is best known for his high-energy television commercials marketing the “ShamWow.” (Vince Shlomi Campaign)
“I think they’re trying to hoodwink the voters from not knowing who I am,” said Shlomi, adding, “Honestly, it’s a swampy move, and that’s one of the things I’ll be working on when I get to Congress.”
Though describing his election effort as an “uphill battle,” Shlomi said he believes it is part of a “higher purpose.”
“The bottom line is I want to help clean the swamp,” he said. “I’ve just seen the world, I’m looking at athletes, and they’re not standing up for kids, or standing up for girls, and they just go with whatever pays the most money. So, I just thought, you know what? I’m not a brave person, but I just can’t let this happen.”
TURNING POINT ISSUES MAJOR ENDORSEMENT IN CRITICAL SENATE RACE AS TRUMP HINTS AT WEIGHING IN
Television commercial star Vince Shlomi, also known as “ShamWow,” is running for U.S. Congress in Texas. (Jason Reed/REUTERS; Vince Shlomi Campaign)
Regarding Shlomi’s ballot name, Abraham George, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, told Fox News Digital that “the National Republican Congressional Committee challenged Mr. Shlomi’s ballot nickname – ‘ShamWow’” and “after considering the law, including Texas Election Code section 52.031, the Republican Party of Texas determined that this challenge was well taken and Mr. Shlomi’s ballot nickname was eliminated. Nicknames that indicate an economic affiliation are impermissible by law.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Carter’s office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Warner Bros. Discovery is cracking open the door to allow spurned bidder, Paramount Skydance, to make its case — but Warner’s board still maintains its preference for Netflix’s competing proposal.
Warner’s move to reopen talks comes after weeks of pressure from Paramount, which submitted an enhanced offer to buy Warner last week. Paramount’s willingness to increase its offer late in the auction attracted the attention of some Warner investors.
On Tuesday, Warner Bros. Discovery responded with a letter to Paramount Chairman David Ellison and others on Paramount’s board, giving the group seven days to “clarify your proposal.”
“We seek your best and final proposal,” Warner board members wrote. Warner set a Feb. 23 deadline for Paramount to comply.
The closely watched sale of the century-old Warner Bros., known for “Batman,” “The Big Bang Theory,” “Casablanca,” and HBO, the home of “Game of Thrones” and “Succession,” is expected to reshape Hollywood.
The flurry of activity comes as Warner Bros. Discovery and Netflix are seeking to enter the home stretch of the auction. Warner separately issued its proxy and set a special March 20 meeting of its shareholders to decide the company’s fate.
Warner Bros. Discovery is recommending that its stockholders approve the $82.7-billion Netflix deal.
“We continue to believe the Netflix merger is in the best interests of WBD shareholders due to the tremendous value it provides, our clear path to achieve regulatory approval and the transaction’s protections for shareholders against downside risk,” Warner Chairman Samuel A. Di Piazza, Jr., said in a Tuesday statement.
Still, the maneuver essentially reopens the talks.
Warner Bros. is creating an opportunity for Paramount to sway Warner board members, which could perhaps prompt Netflix to raise its $27.75 a share offer for Warner’s Burbank-based studios, vast library of programming, HBO and streaming service HBO Max.
Netflix is not interested in buying Warner Bros. Discovery’s basic cable channels, including CNN, TBS, HGTV and Animal Planet, which are set to be spun off to a stand-alone company later this year.
In contrast, Paramount wants to buy the entire company and has offered more than $30 a share.
Last week, Paramount sweetened its bid for Warner, adding a $2.8-billion “break fee” that Warner would have to pay Netflix if the company pulled the plug on that deal. Paramount also said it would pay Warner investors a “ticking fee” of 25 cents a share for every quarter after Jan. 1 that the deal does not close.
“While we have tried to be as constructive as possible in formulating these solutions, several of these items would benefit from collaborative discussion to finalize,” Paramount said last week as it angled for a chance to make its case. “We will work with you to refine these solutions to ensure they address any and all of your concerns.”
Netflix agreed to give Warner Bros. Discovery a temporary waiver from its merger agreement to allow Warner Bros. Discovery to reengage with Paramount, which lost the bidding war on Dec. 4.
“We granted WBD a narrow seven-day waiver of certain obligations under our merger agreement to allow them to engage with PSKY to fully and finally resolve this matter,” Netflix said Tuesday in a statement. “This does not change the fact that we have the only signed, board-recommended
agreement with WBD, and ours is the only certain path to delivering value to WBD’s stockholders.”
Netflix has matching rights for any improved Paramount offer. The company renewed its confidence in its deal and its prospect to win regulatory approval.
“PSKY has repeatedly mischaracterized the regulatory review process by suggesting its proposal will sail through, misleading WBD stockholders about the real risk of their regulatory challenges around the world,” Netflix said in its statement. “WBD stockholders should not be misled into thinking that PSKY has an easier or faster path to regulatory approval – it does not.”
Warner Bros. Discovery acknowledged that Paramount’s recent modification “addresses some of the concerns that WBD had identified several months ago,” according to the letter to Paramount.
But Warner Bros. Discovery added Paramount’s offer “still contains many of the unfavorable terms and conditions that were in the draft agreements … and twice unanimously rejected by our Board,” Warner Bros. Discovery said.
Warner’s board told Paramount it will “welcome the opportunity to engage” during the seven-day negotiation period.
Paramount has been pursuing the prized assets since last September.
“Every step of the way, we have provided PSKY with clear direction on the deficiencies in their offers and opportunities to address them,” Warner Chief Executive David Zaslav said in a statement. “We are engaging with PSKY now to determine whether they can deliver an actionable, binding proposal that provides superior value and certainty for WBD shareholders.”
Politics
Tom Emmer blasts Democrats’ double standard on SAVE Act: ‘They require photo IDs’ at their own DNC
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
EXCLUSIVE: House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., is accusing Democrats of being hypocritical in their opposition to Republicans’ latest election integrity bill.
The No. 3 House Republican ripped the rival party after nearly all of them voted against the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act last week, specifically over its provision mandating federally accepted photo identification at the polls. It’s also sometimes referred to as the “SAVE Act.”
“These guys are doing the same old broken record about voter suppression,” Emmer told Fox News Digital. “Why aren’t they screaming about photo IDs at the airport? Why aren’t they screaming about photo IDs when you check out a book at the library?”
NOEM BACKS SAVE AMERICA ACT, SLAMS ‘RADICAL LEFT’ OPPOSITION TO VOTER IDS AND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer accused Democrats of hypocrisy for requiring photo IDs for the DNC but not supporting the SAVE America Act. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images; Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Emmer pointed out that a photo ID was required for attendees to watch former Vice President Kamala Harris accept the Democratic Party’s nomination for the White House in Chicago last year.
“By the way, if they think it’s voter suppression, why do they require photo IDs at the Democrat National Convention to get in?” Emmer said.
“I mean, I think Americans are so much smarter than these people can understand, can let themselves understand,” he said.
The SAVE America Act passed the House on Wednesday with support from all Republicans — an increasingly rare sight in the chamber — and just one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.
A previous iteration of the bill, just called the SAVE Act, passed the House in April of last year with support from four House Democrats.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, talks with reporters in the Capitol after a meeting of House Democrats in Washington, June 27, 2019. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images)
Whereas the SAVE Act would have created a new federal proof-of-citizenship mandate in the voter registration process and imposed requirements for states to keep their rolls clear of ineligible voters, the updated bill would also require photo ID to vote in any federal election.
That photo ID would also have to denote proof-of-citizenship, according to the legislative text.
DEMOCRAT CLAIMS SAVE ACT WOULD BLOCK MARRIED WOMEN FROM VOTING; REPUBLICANS SAY THAT’S WRONG
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have both panned the bill, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries calling it “voter suppression” and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., dismissing it as “a modern-day Jim Crow.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speaks to the media next to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., at the White House in Washington, Sept. 29, 2025. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
Jeffries also specifically took issue with a provision that would enable the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to initiate removal proceedings if an illegal immigrant was found on a state’s voter rolls, arguing DHS would weaponize the information.
But voter ID, at least, has proven to be a popular standard in U.S. elections across multiple public polls.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A Pew Research Center poll released in August 2025 showed a whopping 83% of people supported government-issued photo ID requirements for showing up to vote, compared to just 16% of people who disapproved of it.
A Gallup poll from October 2024 showed 84% of people supported photo ID for voting in federal elections.
Doing hip longevity lunges daily could help you feel 25 at 65 – here’s why they really work
Review | Jackie Chan’s hot streak continues with Panda Plan: The Magical Tribe
Series Creators Push Back as the Industry Gets ‘Nervous’ About Important Stories and Female Perspective: ‘The Content Might Be Different Enough to Actually Make a Difference’
Starting a GLP-1? How To Maximize Weight Loss and Minimize Side Effects
U.S. women’s figure skaters could’ve been rivals. Instead, they’re the ‘Blade Angels’
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
‘ShamWow Guy’ reveals what is motivating him to run for Congress: ‘This woke mess won’t clean itself’
Mapping forced displacements and settler attacks by Israel in the West Bank
Rev. Jesse Jackson, a civil rights icon, dies at 84
Video: At Least 2 Killed During High School Hockey Game in Rhode Island
Tom Emmer blasts Democrats’ double standard on SAVE Act: ‘They require photo IDs’ at their own DNC
-
Alabama1 week agoGeneva’s Kiera Howell, 16, auditions for ‘American Idol’ season 24
-
Illinois1 week ago2026 IHSA Illinois Wrestling State Finals Schedule And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Culture1 week agoTry This Quiz on Passionate Lines From Popular Literature
-
Science1 week agoTorrance residents call for the ban of ‘flesh-eating’ chemical used at refinery
-
Politics1 week agoWest Virginia worked with ICE — 650 arrests later, officials say Minnesota-style ‘chaos’ is a choice
-
Science1 week agoTrumpRx is launched: How it works and what Democrats say about it
-
Fitness1 week ago13 best fitness watches for 2026, tried and tested
-
Health6 days agoJames Van Der Beek shared colorectal cancer warning sign months before his death