Connect with us

Politics

Trump Grows Increasingly Combative in Showdowns With the Courts

Published

on

Trump Grows Increasingly Combative in Showdowns With the Courts

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

White House officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement

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

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

Zach Montague contributed reporting

Politics

Video: President Trump Brushes Off Question on Khashoggi Murder

Published

on

Video: President Trump Brushes Off Question on Khashoggi Murder

new video loaded: President Trump Brushes Off Question on Khashoggi Murder

transcript

transcript

President Trump Brushes Off Question on Khashoggi Murder

President Trump hosted Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

“Your Royal Highness, the U.S. intelligence concluded that you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist — 9/11 families are furious that you are here in the Oval Office.” “You’re mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happened, but he knew nothing about it. We have a extremely respected man in the Oval Office today, and a friend of mine for a long time, a very good friend of mine. As far as this gentleman is concerned, he’s done a phenomenal job. You don’t have to embarrass our guests by asking a question like that.” Reporter: “Mr. President —” “About the journalist, it’s really painful to hear anyone that’s been losing his life for no real purpose or not in a legal way. And it’s been painful for us in Saudi Arabia. We did all the right steps of investigation, etc., in Saudi Arabia, and we’ve improved our system to be sure that nothing happens like that. And it’s painful and it’s a huge mistake, and we’re doing our best that this doesn’t happen again.”

Advertisement
President Trump hosted Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

By Chevaz Clarke

November 18, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

Lawmakers warned PennDOT of illegal immigrant-CDL crisis before bust; GOP demands answers from Shapiro

Published

on

Lawmakers warned PennDOT of illegal immigrant-CDL crisis before bust; GOP demands answers from Shapiro

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Pennsylvania lawmakers warned Harrisburg officials of a potential crisis on their hands before Monday’s arrest of an Uzbek illegal immigrant trucker in Kansas who held a PennDOT commercial driver’s license (CDL).

Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee chairman Jarrett Coleman shared a letter with Fox News Digital that he sent just days earlier to PennDOT Secretary Mike Carroll asking for answers to how illegal immigrants were receiving CDL licenses despite stated rigorous identity checks.

Coleman, R-Allentown, said Monday’s incident was “deeply disturbing but not surprising” and another example of the Shapiro administration “prioritiz[ing] political optics over public safety.”

He said that Pennsylvanians deserve accountability in situations like this and that if the administration will not provide public answers, then there is a “much bigger problem on our hands.”

Advertisement

TRUCKERS WARN OF ‘FOREIGN INVASION’ AS DHS CRACKS DOWN ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DRIVERS

Trucks move through a major construction zone on US-22/I-78 in Greenwich Township, Berks County, Pa. (Ben Hasty/MediaNews Group/Reading Eagle via Getty Images)

“Public safety is not negotiable,” he said. “Ten days ago, I and several colleagues formally requested answers from PennDOT about what safeguards they have in place to prevent individuals who are in this country illegally, and in some cases have criminal records, from obtaining CDLs.”

ICE ARRESTS ILLEGAL-IMMIGRANT TRUCKER FROM UZBEKISTAN OVER ALLEGED TERROR TIES

The letter had been prompted by reports that a dozen illegal immigrants netted in an October bust of about 80 noncitizen truckers in Oklahoma were issued their licenses by Harrisburg.

Advertisement

“Governor Shapiro is quick to jump in front of cameras and tout his leadership, but when it comes to answering basic questions about how his administration is protecting Pennsylvania drivers, we get silence,” Coleman said.

“This isn’t just bureaucratic delay. It’s stonewalling. And it’s dangerous.”

Coleman led the letter, which was cosigned by Sens. Doug Mastriano, R-Gettysburg, Kristin Phillips-Hill, R-Dallastown, and Dawn Keefer, R-Dillsburg.

EXPERT REVEALS HOW ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TRUCKER MAY HAVE GOTTEN COMMERCIAL LICENSE BEFORE FATAL FLORIDA CRASH

Pennsylvania State Sen. Jarrett Coleman’s official portrait. (PA State Senate/Office of Sen. Jarrett Coleman, R-Allentown.)

Advertisement

It requested Carroll provide more than a dozen datapoints, including whether PennDOT has even reviewed the files of the CDL holders arrested by ICE since October, and whether those drivers were properly verified at the time of issuance.

Carroll was also asked whether PennDOT is using required federal “systematic alien verification for entitlements” to verify immigration status, and whether it was complying with a directive from USDOT Secretary Sean Duffy to halt all issuances of “non-domiciled CDLs.”

BLUE STATE IN THE HOT SEAT AFTER ICE BUSTS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT WITH ‘NO NAME GIVEN’ ON LICENSE

Since the letter was sent, a federal judge rebuked Duffy and overturned his suspension of license issuance.

Coleman also asked Carroll about any internal audits, oversight mechanism, corrective action plan, or assessments of public safety risks from their current modus operandi.

Advertisement

A spokeswoman for Carroll confirmed PennDOT received Coleman’s letter and is in the process of responding.

She assured that whenever “non-citizen applicants apply for a CDL in Pennsylvania, PennDOT follows applicable federal and state processes, reviewing the necessary immigration and naturalization documents and confirming the non-citizen’s legal status in real-time using [DHS’] SAVE database before issuing a license — if the applicant clears the SAVE process, which confirms the applicant is residing in the U.S. under legal status, and successfully meets all other criteria, a license is issued.

“PennDOT completes these two checks to confirm legal status with the federal government every time it issues a license to a non-citizen,” the spokeswoman said.

BLUE STATE INVESTIGATES HOW ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TRUCKER GOT LICENSE BEFORE DEADLY FLORIDA CRASH

Carroll, a former state lawmaker from former President Joe Biden’s home county of Lackawanna, said he has the “greatest level of faith in our driver’s license and motor vehicle folks” when it comes to properly verifying “substantial documentation” required for REAL IDs and licenses.

Advertisement

Later Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Republican Party issued its own demand for Shapiro to speak out on the growing issue.

PAGOP Chairman Greg Rothman, a state senator from Cumberland County, called it “not just a policy failure [but] a national security breach right here in Pennsylvania.

“How in the world did someone with terrorist ties pass every check to get behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler in our state?”

Rothman said the Uzbek national, Akhror Bozorov, also obtained REAL ID verification from PennDOT.

“The people who signed off on this need to be found, fired, and Governor Shapiro must answer for this.”

Advertisement

In that regard, Shapiro’s office hit back at critics and suggested they instead question the Trump administration about the situation.

“If officials are concerned about this, they should redirect their attention to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who manages the federal database that is checked before any Pennsylvania licenses are issued to non-citizens,” said Rosie Lapowsky, a spokeswoman for Shapiro.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

PennDOT Secretary Mike Carroll, right. (VALERIE MYERS/ERIE TIMES-NEWS / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images)

“The PAGOP is formally requesting that federal and state oversight authorities launch a full investigation into the decision-making process that allowed Bozorov to receive a CDL,” the PAGOP added in a statement.

Advertisement

Bozorov’s license—an image of which was obtained by Fox News Digital—listed a ZIP code corresponding to Philadelphia’s Somerton neighborhood, a suburban-style area in the city’s northeast once home to figures like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and, more recently, an increasing number of Russian and Arabic residents.

In response to Bozorov’s initial arrest, PennDOT spokeswoman Alexis Campbell told Fox News Digital that “when non-citizen applicants appear at a Driver License Center in Pennsylvania, PennDOT reviews immigration and naturalization documents, which are confirmed in real-time against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) website before issuing any driver’s license.”

Continue Reading

Politics

House set to vote to release Epstein files following months of pressure

Published

on

House set to vote to release Epstein files following months of pressure

The House is poised to vote overwhelmingly on Tuesday to demand the Justice Department release all documents tied to its investigation of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

President Trump, who initially worked to thwart the vote before reversing course on Sunday night, has said he will sign the measure if it reaches his desk. For that to happen, the bill will also need to pass the Senate, which could consider the measure as soon as Tuesday night.

Republicans for months pushed back on the release of the Epstein files, joining Trump in claiming the Epstein issue was being brought up by Democrats as a way to distract from Republicans’ legislative successes.

But that all seismically shifted Sunday when Trump had a drastic reversal and urged Republicans to vote to release the documents, saying there was “nothing to hide.”

“It’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Advertisement

The reversal came days after 20,000 documents from Epstein’s private estate were released by lawmakers in the House Oversight Committee. The files referenced Trump more than 1,000 times.

In private emails, Epstein wrote that Trump had “spent hours” at his house and “knew about the girls,” a revelation that reignited the push in Congress for further disclosures.

Trump has continued to deny wrongdoing in the Epstein saga despite opposing the release of files from the federal probe into the conduct of his former friend, a convicted sex offender and alleged sex trafficker. He died by suicide while in federal custody in 2019.

Many members of Trump’s MAGA base have demanded the files be released, convinced they contain revelations about powerful people involved in Epstein’s abuse of what is believed to be more than 200 women and girls. Tension among his base spiked when Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in July that an “Epstein client list” did not exist, after saying in February that the list was sitting on her desk awaiting review. She later said she was referring to the Epstein files more generally.

Trump’s call to release the files now highlights how he is trying to prevent an embarrassing defeat as a growing number of Republicans in the House have joined Democrats to vote for the legislation in recent days.

Advertisement

The Epstein files have been a hugely divisive congressional fight in recent months, with Democrats pushing the release, but Republican congressional leaders largely refusing to take the votes. The issue even led to a rift within the MAGA movement, and Trump to cut ties with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia who had long been an ardent support of the president.

“Watching this actually turn into a fight has ripped MAGA apart,” Greene said at a news conference Tuesday in reference to the resistance to release the files.

Democrats have accused Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of delaying the swearing-in of Rep. Adelita Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, because she promised to cast the final vote needed to move a so-called discharge petition, which would force a vote on the floor. Johnson has denied those claims.

If the House and Senate do vote to release the files, all eyes will turn to the Department of Justice, and what exactly it will choose to publicly release.

“The fight, the real fight, will happen after that,” Greene said. “The real test will be: Will the Department of Justice release the files? Or will it all remain tied up in an investigation?”

Advertisement

Several Epstein survivors joined lawmakers at the news conference to talk about how important the vote was for them.

Haley Robson, one of the survivors, questioned Trump’s resistance to the vote even now as he supports it.

“While I do understand that your position has changed on the Epstein files, and I’m grateful that you have pledged to sign this bill, I can’t help to be skeptical of what the agenda is,” Robson said.

If signed into law by Trump, the bill would prohibit the attorney general, Bondi, from withholding, delaying or redacting “any record, document, communication, or investigative material on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

But caveats in the bill could provide Trump and Bondi with loopholes to keep records related to the president concealed.

Advertisement

In the spring, FBI Director Kash Patel directed a Freedom of Information Act team to comb through the entire trove of files from the investigation, and ordered it to redact references to Trump, citing his status as a private citizen with privacy protections when the probe first launched in 2006, Bloomberg reported at the time.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, said the Trump administration will be forced to release the files with an act of Congress.

“They will be breaking the law if they do not release these files,” he said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending