Part 5 of 6
4. EO 14230 Violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights to Counsel of Plaintiff’s Clients.
The Sixth Amendment secures the right, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions,” for “the accused . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” U.S. CONST. amend. VI. Included in this Sixth Amendment guarantee is “the right to effective assistance of counsel,” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984) (quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n.14 (1970)), and a “right to choose one’s own counsel,” subject to some restrictions, Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988); see also supra n.1 (discussing briefly the historical context and purpose of the amendment). Relatedly, in the civil litigation context, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right for parties to “the aid of counsel when desired and provided by the party asserting the right.” Powell, 287 U.S. at 68. Seeking to assert the rights of its criminal and civil clients, plaintiff contends, in Counts VIII and IX, that EO 14230 unconstitutionally interferes with both Fifth and Sixth Amendment constitutional protections by interfering with the ability of plaintiff to represent its clients. See Pl.’s Mem. at 29-31. Plaintiff is correct as to each claim.
Starting with the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal matters, the instruction in EO 14230’s Section 5(a) for all agencies to “limit[] Government employees acting in their official capacity from engaging with [plaintiff’s] employees,” EO 14230 § 5(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782, threatens to undermine plaintiff’s ability to provide effective assistance of counsel to clients in criminal cases, see 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 20 (“Perkins Coie represents clients who have been indicted or are the targets of federal criminal investigations” and has “represented more than 80 individuals and companies who have been criminally investigated, charged, and/or prosecuted by federal authorities at the Department of Justice” in the “past five years”); TRO Hr’g Tr. at 26:23- 24 (plaintiff’s counsel confirming plaintiff has “clients who are indicted and federal targets”). For instance, “defense counsel have responsibilities in the plea bargain process . . . that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires.” Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 143-44 (2012); accord Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 170 (2012). Obviously, the plea bargain process requires defense counsel to engage with federal prosecutors, through communicating with them in writing, speaking to them, or meeting in-person with them. The plain language of EO 14230 requiring any planned guidance to “limit[] Government employees acting in their official capacity from engaging with Perkins Coie employees” and further limiting plaintiff’s employees from entering federal buildings, EO 14230 § 5(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782, poses an existential threat to that critical function. The immediacy of this threat is amply demonstrated by the fact that government officials cancelled two separate meetings in separate matters with plaintiff’s employees in the four business days between the issuance of EO 14230 and the Court’s TRO. See Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 152, 162. Cancelled meetings and restricting plaintiff’s access to government officials with authority in matters affecting plaintiff’s clients in criminal matters, therefore, threatens to undermine plaintiff’s clients’ vital right to effective assistance of counsel.
Similarly, the Order impinges on “the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will represent him.” United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144 (2006). As the Supreme Court has explained, this right “to counsel of choice,” id. at 146, is “the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee” to counsel protected by the Sixth Amendment, id. at 147-48. In addition to impinging on the right to effective counsel by limiting access to federal government buildings and officials, as directed in Section 5(a), Section 3 undermines plaintiff’s ability to perform its professional duties in these representations, by requiring any client with a government contract, whether or not plaintiff’s representation of the client is related to that contract, to terminate the relationship with plaintiff or face the loss of all government contracts. EO 14230 § 3(a), (b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781-82. Though the Order does not explicitly ban government contractor clients from hiring plaintiff, the combination of limiting government building and officials access to Firm employees, directing termination of any government contract on which the Firm has provided services, and threatening termination of all government contracts held by contractors doing any business with the Firm, would effectively have that result. See Pl.’s SMF ¶¶ 151-61 (describing the clients who terminated and/or began to reconsider representations in the brief time between the issuance of the EO and the Court’s TRO and the resulting impacts on plaintiff); Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. 6, Expert Report of Robert E. Hirshon, former President, American Bar Association & former ethics and professional responsibility professor, Michigan Law School (“Hirshon Rep.”) ¶ 19, ECF No. 39-6 (“[T]he Executive Order, if upheld, would punish clients (through cancellation of their government contracts) for seeking advice or other legal services from their chosen lawyer, or from a law firm the President dislikes.”).
Even if clients choose to maintain their relationship with plaintiff in the face of EO 14230’s threat of government contract termination, the Rules of Professional Conduct might force plaintiff to withdraw as counsel if government restrictions, particularly as agency guidance emerges, adversely impact plaintiff’s ability to conduct legal work effectively on behalf of the Firm’s clients. See, e.g., Pl.’s MSJ., Ex. 7, Expert Rep. of Prof. Roy D. Simon, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Legal Ethics Emeritus, Hofstra University’s Maurice A. Deane School of Law (“Simon Rep.”) ¶ 48, ECF No. 39-7 (“Clients and potential clients will be deprived of their choice of counsel if the Executive Order’s restrictions on Perkins Coie . . . interfere with Perkins Coie’s ability to represent a client competently, because in those instances the Rules of Professional Conduct will permit or require Perkins Coie to request a tribunal’s permission to withdraw from a pending matter.”). Either way, the fundamental rights of the clients would be adversely affected.
The law is well-settled that the government is not constitutionally permitted to interfere directly with the right of plaintiff’s clients in criminal matters to choose plaintiff to represent them. See Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 148 (“Deprivation of the right [to counsel of choice] is ‘complete’ when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants, regardless of the quality of the representation he received.”). Nor may the government do indirectly what a government official “is barred from doing directly.” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 190. Yet, the record demonstrates this is exactly what has happened in this case. Since EO 14230 was issued, “[m]any clients” of plaintiff have “request[ed] frequent updates relating to the Order to assess whether Perkins Coie can continue to represent them.” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 158 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 48). Whether due to fears that the government might retaliate against clients who hire plaintiff to represent them, such as by canceling any government contracts by firms that do business with plaintiff, see EO 14230 Fact Sheet (“[T]he Federal Government will prohibit funding contractors that use Perkins Coie LLP.”), or concern that plaintiff’s lawyers may not have access to federal buildings and officials, see Pl.’s SMF ¶ 152 (explaining that, after plaintiff’s lawyers were refused attendance at a scheduled meeting with a federal official on the day after EO 14230 was issued, the client, on which case plaintiff had already done over $1 million worth of work, “hired another law firm to represent it before the federal government and in related litigation” (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 44)), EO 14230 has already forced plaintiff’s clients to choose between using their chosen lawyers and facing potential consequences from the government due to who they have hired as counsel. Forcing plaintiff’s clients to make such a choice violates their Sixth Amendment rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Count VIII.
For essentially the same reasons, EO 14230 also unconstitutionally invades the right to counsel in the civil context. In American Airways Charters, Inc. v. Regan, 746 F.2d 865, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1984), the D.C. Circuit considered the rights of a corporation designated as a “Cuban national” to “choose and retain counsel without obtaining in advance a government . . . license to do so”—in this case, from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). In its decision, the Circuit discussed the potential danger of allowing “an executive agency that is, in significant respects, the adverse party” effectively to have veto power over the choice of an attorney. Id. at 872. In construing the statute in question to prevent OFAC from exercising power over the company’s choice of counsel, see id. at 873-74, the Circuit recognized the “invalidity of a governmental attempt to deny counsel to a civil litigant,” id. at 873 (citing Powell, 287 U.S. at 68-69, and collecting cases “elaborat[ing] on the same basic theme”); see also Muniz v. Meese, 115 F.R.D. 63, 66 n.11 (D.D.C. 1987) (noting “violation of civil liberties that is implied by a government intrusion into [citizens’] right to select and to be represented by counsel of their choice”).
While the First Amendment’s free speech and association protections safeguard a client’s rights to hire and consult with an attorney, see supra Part III.B.2, separate constitutional problems are posed under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments when the government interferes with a client’s right to choose counsel. The government contracting compelled disclosure and termination instruction and government building and government official access bars in EO 14230’s Sections 3 and 5, respectively, would adversely impact both clients’ ability to choose plaintiff and plaintiff’s ability to provide representation to clients in criminal cases, and would adversely impact plaintiff’s representations of clients in civil matters involving the government. Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to summary judgment on Count IX.33
5. EO 14230 Violates Plaintiff’s Procedural Right to Due Process of Law.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. CONST. amend. V. Plaintiff claims, in Count II, that EO 14230 violates this protection by “vitiat[ing] the Firm’s right to petition the government,” without affording plaintiff proper process. Pl.’s Mem. at 21.34 Evaluating these procedural due process claims requires determining, first, whether a protected interest held by plaintiff in life, liberty, or property was deprived and, second, whether any process provided was adequate. See Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230, 236 (2023) (citing Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990)).35
Analysis of plaintiff’s claim that EO 14230 violates, without proper process, the Firm’s right to petition the government, which is an interest protected under the First Amendment, is straightforward. The Supreme Court has recognized that “[t]he very idea of government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to . . . petition for a redress of grievances,” De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 (1937) (quoting United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1875)), and that this right “is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions,” id. (citations omitted). See also BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (“We have recognized [the] right to petition as one of ‘the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.” (quoting Mine Workers, 389 U.S. at 222). This liberty interest in petitioning the government is so fundamental, therefore, that it is protected under the due process clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See De Jonge, 299 U.S. at 364 (citations omitted); Trentadue v. Integrity Comm., 501 F.3d 1215, 1236-37 (10th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause applies to the “liberty interest in [the] First Amendment right to petition the government”).
The right to petition the government “extends to all departments of the Government” and, crucially, includes “[t]he right of access to the courts.” BE & K Constr. Co., 536 U.S. at 525 (quoting Calif. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972)); see also Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379, 387 (2011) (“[T]he Petition Clause protects the right of individuals to appeal to courts and other forums established by the government for resolution of legal disputes.”). Moreover, retaliation based on the exercise of the right to petition the government via access to the courts violates that right, and the associated liberty interest, in the same way that retaliation based on protected speech violates the First Amendment. See Guarnieri, 564 U.S. at 387-93 (applying, in a case involving a public employee, the same test to retaliation for petition rights as is applied for retaliation based on speech). Since EO 14230’s retaliatory nature has already been determined, and that retaliation relied at least in part on lawsuits filed by plaintiff, see supra Part III.B.1, plaintiff’s liberty interest in petitioning the government was clearly implicated. In other words, the government’s retaliatory actions reflected in EO 14230, based in part on plaintiff’s filing of lawsuits on behalf of the Firm’s clients, deprived plaintiff of its liberty interest in petitioning the government.
Here, deciding what process was due to plaintiff is unnecessary, because no process was provided. See TRO Hr’g Tr. at 11:12-20 (plaintiff’s counsel confirming no notice or process was given to plaintiff); see also id. at 17:20-18:4 (plaintiff’s counsel explaining that EO 14230 “does not provide any kind of notice with respect to the factual findings in Section 1” or “the restrictions that are placed only on this law firm,” since plaintiff “only learned about them contemporaneous with the release of the executive order”). Certainly, here, the text of EO 14230 does not satisfy the notice requirement because the retaliation, and thus the deprivation of the right, was completed at the time of issuance, regardless of whether guidance in some form remains pending. See TRO Hr’g Tr. at 17:5-19:11 (plaintiff’s counsel noting that plaintiff “only learned about” both the “factual findings in Section 1” and the “restrictions that are placed only on” plaintiff and not other law firms “contemporaneous with the release of” EO 14230, and further that, were guidance to be released in the future, “agencies are already told what the outcome of their analysis is, because they have been told in Section 1 that working with Perkins Coie is not consistent with the national interest and not consistent with the administration and policies of the administration”). Notably, even in cases involving legitimate national security interests, some level of due process is required before subjecting a person to the adverse consequences of government action. See, e.g., Ralls Corp. v. CFIUS, 758 F.3d 296, 318-19 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (finding a due process violation where a foreign-owned corporation was subject to an order preventing a merger without an opportunity to rebut the findings on which the order was based).36
In sum, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its claim in Count II that EO 14230 violates the Firm’s procedural due process rights by severely impinging on the Firm’s protected liberty interest to petition the government by both retaliating against the Firm for exercising its right to petition the government and by restricting the Firm’s access to government facilities and officials, without any prior notice or opportunity to be heard.
6. EO 14230 is Impermissibly Vague.
Plaintiff claims, in Count III, that EO 14230 is impermissibly vague, in violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause, because the Order “fails to provide adequate notice as to what are prohibited ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies,” Am. Compl. ¶ 109, but nevertheless directs government agencies to take multiple adverse actions against plaintiff based on this “vaguely defined” term, including “threatened investigation and enforcement action by the EEOC and [DOJ],” “threatened suspension of active security clearances,” “threatened termination of contracts or funding with Perkins Coie or entities doing business with Perkins Coie,” “threatened limitation of access to Federal property and engaging with government employees,” and threatened prevention of hiring of Perkins Coie employees for Federal positions,” id. ¶¶ 110-14. When asked about what precisely was wrong with “diversity, equity and inclusion,” the government provided little help, stating “diversity, in and of itself, isn’t the problem. The problem is stereotyping based off of these points.” Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 64:3-5. In defense of this due process challenge, the government avoids trying to define the terms “diversity, equity and inclusion” altogether and contends that the Order’s reference “to ‘categories prohibited by civil rights laws,’” Gov’t’s Mem. at 12 (quoting EO 14230 § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781), provides a sufficient “intelligible benchmark” to save the Order from plaintiff’s vagueness challenge, id. at 13. The government’s defense is not persuasive.
“A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012). Courts apply this doctrine to review both civil and criminal laws. See, e.g., Boutilier v. INS, 387 U.S. 118, 123 (1967) (“It is true that this Court has held the ‘void for vagueness’ doctrine applicable to civil as well as criminal actions.”); Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1048-51 (1991) (finding a state Supreme Court rule governing attorney conduct void for vagueness); Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603-04 (1967) (finding a restriction on government employee speech “wholly lacking in terms susceptible of objective measurement” (internal quotation marks, citation omitted)). In the civil context, an enactment is only void if it is “so vague and indefinite as really to be no rule or standard at all.” Boutilier, 387 U.S. at 123; see also Senior C.L. Ass’n, Inc. v. Kemp, 965 F.2d 1030, 1036 (11th Cir. 1992) (“To find a civil statute void for vagueness, the statute must be ‘so vague and indefinite as really to be no rule or standard at all.’” (quoting Boutilier, 387 U.S. at 123)). EO 14230 fails this test, as another Judge on this Court and other courts to review the Trump Administration’s use of these terms in various orders and agency rules have also concluded. See, e.g., NAACP v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 1196212, at *1-2, 6 (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2025) (finding a certification requirement imposed on schools, which required compliance with a Dear Colleague Letter issued by the U.S. Department of Education (“DOE”) instructing “federally funded educational institutions to cease all racially discriminatory initiatives and unlawful DEI programs,” as further defined in a “follow-on ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ document,” was void for vagueness where the DOE documents “fail[ed] to provide an actionable definition of what constitutes ‘DEI’ or a ‘DEI’ practice, or delineate between a lawful DEI practice and an unlawful one”); Nat’l Educ. Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 1188160, at *1, 18 (D.N.H. Apr. 24, 2025) (finding, in another case challenging the same DOE certification requirement and underlying documents, that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on its void for vagueness challenge, since the DOE Dear Colleague Letter “does not make clear . . . what the Department believes constitutes a DEI program, or the circumstances in which the Department believes DEI programs run afoul of Title VI, or “even define what a ‘DEI program’ is”); Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Offs. in Higher Educ. v. Trump, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2025 WL 573764, at *1-2, 4, 19-20, 26 (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2025) (in considering two Executive Orders, Nos. 14151, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 29, 2025), and 14173, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633 (Jan. 31, 2025), finding term “equity-related’ grants or contracts” void for vagueness, since “[t]he meaning of the word ‘equity’ is unclear to a degree that risks arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement” and “leaves current grant recipients and contractual counterparts unsure about what activities are prohibited,” and further finding direction to Attorney General to take steps to “deter DEI programs or principles . . . that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences” (quoting EO 14173, 90 Fed. Reg. at 8635), void for vagueness given lack of “guidance on what the new administration considers to constitute ‘illegal DEI discrimination and preferences,’ . . . or what types of ‘DEI programs or principles’ the new administration considers ‘illegal’ and is seeking to ‘deter’” (internal citations omitted)), stayed pending appeal, No. 25-1189, ECF No. 29 (4th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025).37
The Order and the accompanying fact sheet direct adverse agency actions against plaintiff due to the finding that plaintiff “racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants” and engages in employment practices “on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws.” EO 14230 § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781; EO 14230 Fact Sheet (mentioning plaintiff’s “discriminatory actions”). While the government suggests that the Order’s reference to “categories prohibited by civil rights laws” provides clarity about what is prohibited, Gov’t’s Mem. at 12 (quoting EO 14230 § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781), neither the Order and fact sheet nor the record submitted in this case provides any actual evidence of illegal discrimination by plaintiff that would make clear what Firm employment policies or practices, in the government’s view, run afoul of the law. See also supra Part III.B.1(a).38
The Order goes on to mention the Administration’s goal of “ending discrimination under ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies,” EO 14230 § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781, leading to a possible inference that such policies, and not any concrete evidence of discrimination, are the problematic conduct that plaintiff should avoid. The terms diversity, equity, and inclusion, taken collectively or individually, however, could refer to a wide range of actions and programs, formal or informal, as well as basic thoughts and beliefs. The Order provides no definition or guidance as to what form of program possibly described by these terms is considered unlawful discrimination by the Trump Administration, leaving plaintiff to guess at what is and is not permissible in the government’s view, while already facing the threat of adverse actions during the guessing.
The government’s own briefing reflects this uncertainty. While repeatedly accusing plaintiff of engaging in racial discrimination, see Gov’t’s Mem. at 2, 8-10, 17, 19, 21, 23; Gov’t’s Opp’n at 13, 14; Gov’t’s Reply at 3, 4, the government at various times also states that (1) plaintiff should be investigated by the EEOC to determine “whether [they] are violating the civil rights laws,” Gov’t’s Mem. at 2 (emphasis supplied); (2) the government is merely trying to advance “valid social policies regarding discrimination,” rather than enforcing any legal prohibitions, Gov’t’s Mem. at 3; see also Gov’t’s Opp’n at 3, 4; (3) “[d]iversity initiatives” are “legally suspect,” and thus plaintiff’s practices “provide ample basis for review,” Gov’t’s Mem. at 11 (emphasis supplied); see also Gov’t’s Opp’n at 16; (4) the government is merely “rais[ing] legitimate legal issues of just how far DEI policies and programs can go and whether such policies cross the line into illegal discrimination,” Gov’t’s Mem. at 27 (emphasis supplied); (5) plaintiff engaged in “aggressive DEI practices,” Gov’t’s Reply at 1; and (6) plaintiff “appears to have” engaged in what the government characterizes as discrimination, Gov’t’s Opp’n at 17-19 (emphasis supplied). When even the government cannot decide what exactly the grounds for its actions were, plaintiff is truly left unable to know what conduct to avoid.
In short, EO 14230 fails to set a coherent standard for plaintiff to follow. For that reason, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on Count III.
C. Permanent Injunction Factors
Plaintiff has amply demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment on its claims that EO 14230 violates the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Given this determination, EO 14230 cannot be “implemented consistent with applicable law,” EO 14230 § 6(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782, as required by the embedded terms of the Order, which is thus is null and void. Both parties agree that, notwithstanding the effect of Section 6(b), plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief must still be addressed. Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 15:3-17:20 (government counsel discussing Section 6(b) and urging that “the application of the factors to each section that was being enjoined would still need to be undertaken”); id. at 91:17-92:23 (plaintiff’s counsel urging same to ensure future “enforceability”).
To obtain the permanent injunctive relief sought, plaintiff “must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 156-57 (2010) (quoting eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). The final two factors “merge” into one when “the Government is the opposing party,” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009) (applying merged factors in stay context), because “the government’s interest is the public interest,” Pursuing America’s Greatness v. FEC, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original) (applying merged factors in preliminary injunction context); see also Anatol Zukerman & Charles Krause Reporting, LLC v. U.S. Postal Serv., 64 F.4th 1354, 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (applying the merged factors in permanent injunction context). Plaintiff succeeds on each showing.
1. Plaintiff Has Demonstrated Irreparable Injury Will Occur Absent an Injunction, With No Adequate Remedy at Law.
“It has long been established that the loss of constitutional freedoms, ‘for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” Mills v. District of Columbia, 571 F.3d 1304, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373); see also Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 19 (2020) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” (quoting Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373); Karem v. Trump, 960 F.3d 656, 668 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“[A] violation of Fifth Amendment due process rights . . . support[s] injunctive relief.”). Here, plaintiff has demonstrated that EO 14230 violates the Firm’s rights under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, as well as its clients’ rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See supra Parts III.B.1-6. These violations were ongoing until Sections 1, 3 and 5 were temporarily enjoined and would continue were the injunction lifted, meaning they are sufficient, by themselves, to establish irreparable harm. Furthermore, these injuries are irreparable “because [they] cannot be fully compensated by later damages,” Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Invisible Empire, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 751 F. Supp. 218, 224 (D.D.C. 1990) (collecting cases); see also, e.g., Book People, Inc. v. Wong, 91 F.4th 318, 340 (5th Cir. 2024) (“An irreparable harm is one for which there is no adequate remedy at law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted))—a reality reinforced in this scenario by the existence of sovereign immunity.
Plaintiff has also shown monetary harm sufficient to establish irreparable harm. Where, as here, sovereign immunity limits plaintiff to seeking nonmonetary equitable relief and thus renders unrecoverable plaintiff’s monetary damages, courts have recognized these losses “can . . . constitute irreparable harm.” Xiaomi Corp. v. Dep’t of Def., No. 21-cv-280 (RC), 2021 WL 950144, at *10 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2021) (citations omitted); see also California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 581 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating that economic harm caused by federal agencies protected by sovereign immunity “is irreparable . . . because the states will not be able to recover monetary damages”); Chamber of Com. v. Edmondson, 594 F.3d 742, 770-71 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Imposition of monetary damages that cannot later be recovered for reasons such as sovereign immunity constitutes irreparable injury.”); Iowa Utilities Bd. v. FCC, 109 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir. 1996) (“The threat of unrecoverable economic loss, however, does qualify as irreparable harm.”); TRO Hr’g Tr. at 26:11-15 (plaintiff’s counsel recognizing sovereign immunity bars monetary recovery in this case). Even where unrecoverable economic harm exists, courts in this district have required the economic harm faced to be “serious in terms of its effect on the plaintiff,” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 514 F. Supp. 1019, 1026 (D.D.C. 1981), “significant,” Air Trans. Ass’n v. Exp.-Imp. Bank, 840 F. Supp. 2d 327, 335 (D.D.C. 2012); Cal. Ass’n of Priv. Postsecondary Schs. v. DeVos, 344 F. Supp. 3d 158, 170 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Air Trans., 840 F. Supp. 2d at 335), or “sufficiently severe,” Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 105 F. Supp. 3d 108, 115 (D.D.C. 2015).
Under any formulation of this standard, plaintiff succeeds in showing irreparable monetary harm. The undisputed facts in this case show that plaintiff suffered significant losses in the week between the issuance of EO 14230 and entry of the TRO as a direct result of the Order. One client who had used the Firm for seven years and was represented by the Firm in seven open matters said, “within hours of the Order’s release, that due to the Order, [plaintiff] cannot represent that client in any litigation or before the relevant federal agency.” 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 48.a (emphasis supplied); see also Pl.’s SMF ¶ 151 (referencing this client); Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s SMF at 5 (noting the facts of ¶ 151 are undisputed). Another client, who had used the Firm for 35 years, reassigned two matters to other law firms the day after EO 14230 was released. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 153. Yet another client, with the Firm since 2018, “withdrew all work from [plaintiff] as a result of the Order,” as of the day after the Order’s issuance. 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 48.c (emphasis supplied); see also Pl.’s SMF ¶ 154. A coalition of four clients similarly withdrew “all coalition work from [plaintiff] as of March 7, 2025 due to the need of the clients to engage with various federal agencies—including the DEA, DOJ, and HHS—by the nature of their business.” 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 48.d; see also Pl.’s SMF ¶ 155. “The abrupt loss of so many longstanding and significant clients across a variety of business types of practice disciplines in a one-week period is exceptional and abnormal” for plaintiff, 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 49, and the revenue loss from terminated clients alone was “significant,” id. ¶ 50, in the short time period EO 14230 was in effect—a statement readily supported by the facts.
Moreover, without an injunction, these losses are almost certain to continue. On March 7, 2025, a major client with fifteen open matters with plaintiff “informed the firm . . . that it is reconsidering its engagements with [plaintiff] unless something changes in terms of the Order’s requirements.” 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 48.e. Another long-time client “that had increased its work five-fold over the past three years and had 30 open matters started to reconsider whether to terminate every engagement with [plaintiff].” Id. ¶ 48.g. Finally, “[ b]ecause of the uncertainty created by the Order, and even after the entry of the TRO, many clients have begun requesting frequent updates relating to the Order in order to assess whether [plaintiff] can continue to represent them,” id. ¶ 48.h., providing strong evidence that, were the current temporary injunction lifted and implementation and enforcement of EO 14230 allowed to proceed, plaintiff would continue to suffer serious, or significant, or severe revenue losses. Therefore, plaintiff additionally succeeds in showing irreparable injury based on monetary harms. Again, because sovereign immunity bars recovery of money damages, these losses could not be adequately compensated by legal remedies.
2. Balance of equities/public interest
The balance of the equities and the public interest also favor the issuance of an injunction for a simple reason: “enforcement of an unconstitutional law is always contrary to the public interest.” Karem, 960 F.3d at 668 (quoting Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638, 653 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). Plaintiff has demonstrated that EO 14230 is unconstitutional in all its action items, from findings to instructions to federal agencies, and therefore the government should have no interest in the Order’s continued enforcement. Plaintiff, meanwhile, has demonstrated the strong interests of the Firm, its employees, and clients, as well as the American legal system and the public more broadly, in issuance of an injunction to protect the independence of counsel to represent their clients vigorously and zealously, without fear of retribution from the government simply for doing the job of a lawyer.
Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to a permanent injunction barring enforcement of any portion of EO 14230 by any Executive branch agency or entity subject to EO 14230.
IV. CONCLUSION
The U.S. Constitution affords critical protections against Executive action like that ordered in EO 14230. Government officials, including the President, may not “subject[] individuals to ‘retaliatory actions’ after the fact for having engaged in protected speech.” Hous. Cmty. Coll. Sys., 595 U.S. at 474 (quoting Nieves, 587 U.S. at 398). They may neither “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 188, nor engage in the use of “purely personal and arbitrary power,” Yick Wo, 118 U.S. at 370. In this case, these and other foundational protections were violated by EO 14230. On that basis, this Court has found that EO 14230 violates the Constitution and is thus null and void. For the reasons explained, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment and declaratory and permanent injunctive relief on Counts II through IX of the Amended Complaint. The government’s motion to dismiss is denied.
An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered contemporaneously.
Date: May 2, 2025
__________________________
BERYL A. HOWELL
United States District Judge
Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat May 03, 2025 8:32 pm
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37503
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat May 03, 2025 8:33 pm
Part 6 of 6
_______________
Notes:
1 Amici law professors highlight that the right to counsel was included in the Bill of Rights in large part to avoid “executive control of access to counsel,” which “could distort the administration of justice.” Br. of Amici Curiae 363 Law Professors in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. & for Declaratory & Permanent Injunctive Relief (“Law Professors’ Br.”) at 11, ECF No. 49; see also id. at 11-15 (reviewing the history of the inclusion of this right in the Bill of Rights and collecting authorities). The historical backdrop for these provisions, as Justice Black explained, was in direct response to the “willingness . . . of the courts of England to make ‘short shrift’ of unpopular and uncooperative groups,” including “lawyers whose greatest crime was to dare to defend unpopular causes.” Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117, 139-40 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting); see also id. at 138-41 (reviewing the history and protections adopted in response).
2 See Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. & Declaratory & Permanent Injunctive Relief (“Pl.’s MSJ”), Ex. 4, Declaration of Christopher N. Manning, Partner, Williams & Connolly (“Manning Decl.”), Ex. 27 (“EO 14230”), ECF No. 39-4 at 127.
3 This message has been heard and heeded by some targeted law firms, as reflected in their choice, after reportedly direct dealings with the current White House, to agree to demand terms, perhaps viewing this choice as the best alternative for their clients and employees. Yet, some clients may harbor reservations about the implications of such deals for the vigorous and zealous representation to which they are entitled from ethically responsible counsel, since at least the publicized deal terms appear only to forestall, rather than eliminate, the threat of being targeted in an Executive Order. As amici former and current general counsel caution, a “fundamental premise of the rule of law” is that “when parties challenge the government, their lawyers ‘oppose[] the designated representatives of the State,’ and ‘[t]he system assumes that adversarial testing will ultimately advance the public interest in truth and fairness.’ This safeguard against government overreach fails when attorneys cannot ‘advanc[e] the undivided interests of [their] client[s]’ for fear of reprisal from the government.” Br. of Amici Curiae Former & Current General Counsel Supporting Pl. Perkins Coie, LLP at 9-10, ECF No. 99 (alterations in original; internal citation omitted) (quoting Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981)). Only when lawyers make the choice to challenge rather than back down when confronted with government action raising non-trivial constitutional issues can a case be brought to court for judicial review of the legal merits, as was done in this case by plaintiff Perkins Coie LLP, plaintiff’s counsel Williams & Connolly, and the lawyers, firms, organizations, and individuals who submitted amicus briefs in this case. As one amicus aptly put it, “[o]ur judicial system is under serious threat when determining whether to file an Amicus Curiae brief could be a career ending decision. But, when lawyers are apprehensive about retribution simply for filing a brief adverse to the government, there is no other choice but to do so.” Amicus Curiae Br. of Pickering Legal LLC in Supp. of Pl.’s Request for a Permanent Injunction at 6, ECF No. 93. If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.
4 The moniker “defendants” is commonly used to refer to federal government components sued in civil cases, just as the named government components generally refer to themselves in briefing here. See, e.g., Gov’t’s Mem. at 4; Gov’t’s Opp’n to Pl.’s MSJ (“Gov’t’s Opp’n”) at 5, ECF No. 143. In contrast, plaintiff refers to the named defendants in this lawsuit as “the government.” E.g., Pl.’s Mem. of L. in Supp. of Pl.’s MSJ (“Pl.’s Mem.”) at 12, ECF No. 39-1; Pl.’s Mem. of L. in Opp’n to Gov’t’s MTD (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 1, ECF No. 142. Here, the challenged action is an Executive Order, issued by the President of the United States, that directs compliance by the entirety of the Executive Branch of the federal government. See, e.g., EO 14230 § 3(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782 (directing action by “[t]he heads of all agencies”). Using “the government” to refer to defendants thus more accurately encapsulates the circumstances of this case, where the challenge is not merely to the actions of a finite number of Executive branch components but is to the actions of the Executive branch writ large.
5 Plaintiff additionally claims, in Count I of the Amended Complaint, that Sections 1, 2(b), 3, and 5 of EO 14230 violate the Constitution’s inherent separation of powers through the “Unconstitutional Exercise of Judicial Authority,” Am. Compl. at 81 (Count I header); see also Pl.’s Mem. at 34 (arguing these provisions of the Order “invade[] the Judiciary’s authority”). Since resolution of plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments entitles plaintiff to summary judgment and the full relief sought in this case, see generally infra Parts III.B., C., the separation of powers claim asserted in Count I need not be considered.
6 Unless otherwise noted, cited facts submitted by the parties are undisputed. See Pl.’s SMF; Gov’t’s Opp’n, Ex. 1, Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s SMF (“Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s SMF”), ECF No. 143-1.
7 As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion, an appeal of this sanctions order against President Trump and his counsel remains pending in the Eleventh Circuit. Trump et al. v. Clinton et al., No. 23-10387 (11th Cir.) (appeal docketed Feb. 6, 2023).
8 For relevant context, Elias represented Democrat Bill Nelson, Florida’s then-sitting U.S. Senator, in the recount against Republican candidate Rick Scott. See, e.g., Kenneth P. Vogel & Patricia Mazzei, In Florida Recount Fight, Democratic Lawyer Draws Plaudits and Fire, N.Y. Times (Nov. 14, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/us/p ... count.html.
9 President Trump’s statements about plaintiff have persisted even up to April 23, 2025, the day of the motions hearing on the parties’ pending cross-motions in this case, when he posted on Truth Social, among other things, that “I’m suing the law firm of Perkins Coie for their egregious and unlawful acts, in particular the conduct of a specific member of this firm.” @RealDonaldTrump, Truth Social (Apr. 23, 2025, 9:35 AM), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 306195784; see also Trump Says He is Suing Perkins Coie Law Firm, Reuters (Apr. 23, 2025, 9:59 AM), https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-say ... rkinscoie- law-firm-2025-04-23/. Though President Trump incorrectly describes his role in this litigation as the party bringing the lawsuit, this slip accurately reflects his intent to target plaintiff based on his negative view of the Firm.
10 Plaintiff’s SMF identifies the challenged Executive Order as “14185,” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 84, but the complaint in Shilling challenges Executive Order 14183, Compl. ¶ 1, Shilling v. Trump et al., No. 2:25-cv-241 (W.D. Wash.) (filed Feb. 6, 2025); see also Shilling v. United States, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 926866, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 27, 2025) (noting that the lawsuit challenged Executive Order 14183).
11 The same Executive Order was challenged in another lawsuit, filed in this District, in which another Judge on this Court also granted a preliminary injunction. See Talbott v. United States, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 842332, at *1, 3 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2025) (enjoining enforcement of Executive Order 14183). Perkins Coie was not involved in that litigation. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 87.
12 EO 14230 § 2(a) states in full: “The Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Perkins Coie, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.” EO 14230 § 2(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781.
13 EO 14230 § 2(b) states in full: “The Office of Management and Budget shall identify all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of Perkins Coie. The heads of all agencies providing such material or services shall, to the extent permitted by law, expeditiously cease such provision.” EO 14230 § 2(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781.
14 EO 14230 § 3(a) states in full: “To prevent the transfer of taxpayer dollars to Federal contractors whose earnings subsidize, among other things, racial discrimination, falsified documents designed to weaponize the Government against candidates for office, and anti-democratic election changes that invite fraud and distrust, Government contracting agencies shall, to the extent permissible by law, require Government contractors to disclose any business they do with Perkins Coie and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract.” EO 14230 § 3(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781.
15 EO 14230 § 3(b) states in pertinent part: “The heads of all agencies shall review all contracts with Perkins Coie or with entities that disclose doing business with Perkins Coie under subsection (a) of this section. To the extent permitted by law, the heads of agencies shall: . . . (i) take appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, for which Perkins Coie has been hired to perform any service; [and] (ii) otherwise align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States; with the goals and priorities of my Administration as expressed in executive actions, especially Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025 (Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government); and as heads of agencies deem appropriate. Within 30 days of the date of this order, all agencies shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget an assessment of contracts with Perkins Coie or with entities that do business with Perkins Coie effective as of the date of this order and any actions taken with respect to those contracts in accordance with this order.” EO 14230 § 3(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782.
16 EO 14230 § 4(a) states in full: “The Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall review the practices of representative large, influential, or industry leading law firms for consistency with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including whether large law firms: reserve certain positions, such as summer associate spots, for individuals of preferred races; promote individuals on a discriminatory basis; permit client access on a discriminatory basis; or provide access to events, trainings, or travel on a discriminatory basis.” EO14230 § 4(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782.
17 EO 14230 § 4(b) states in full: “The Attorney General, in coordination with the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in consultation with State Attorneys General as appropriate, shall investigate the practices of large law firms as described in subsection (a) of this section who do business with Federal entities for compliance with race-based and sex-based non-discrimination laws and take any additional actions the Attorney General deems appropriate in light of the evidence uncovered.” EO14230 § 4(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782.
18 EO 14230 § 5(a) states in full: “The heads of all agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide guidance limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of Perkins Coie when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States. In addition, the heads of all agencies shall provide guidance limiting Government employees acting in their official capacity from engaging with Perkins Coie employees to ensure consistency with the national security and other interests of the United States.” EO 14230 § 5(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782.
19 EO 14230 § 5(b) states in full: “Agency officials shall, to the extent permitted by law, refrain from hiring employees of Perkins Coie, absent a waiver from the head of the agency, made in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, that such hire will not threaten the national security of the United States.” EO 14230 § 5(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782.
20 The government disputes this statement “as factual inference or conclusion,” Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s SMF at 5 (responding to ¶ 161), without explaining how the statements made by plaintiff’s declarant, a Firm partner familiar with the “business and operations” of the firm, 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 1, including the impact on the Firm’s revenue from client terminations occurring in the days immediately following the issuance of EO 14230, may be criticized as based on “inference or conclusion,” rather than direct knowledge. The government’s “dispute” rings hollow, particularly given (1) the temporal closeness in time between the issuance of EO 14230 and the client reactions, (2) the long-term relationships between plaintiff and the clients who terminated business with the law firm, and (3) the Order’s terms, which were designed to hamper the effectiveness of plaintiff’s representation of clients before federal agencies, as discussed further infra in Part III.B.4.
21 The government’s supplemental status report included as an attachment the guidance memorandum, dated March 20, 2025, sent by the Attorney General and OMB Director to all agencies, pursuant to the Court’s order clarifying the scope of the TRO. This second guidance memorandum, unlike the first guidance memorandum sent on March 18, 2025, included, for the first time, the following extra text: “The Executive Branch’s position is that Executive Order 14230 is permissible, and that the Court’s order was erroneous. The government reserves the right to take all necessary and legal actions in response to the ‘dishonest and dangerous’ conduct of Perkins Coie LLP, as set forth in Executive Order 14230.” Gov’t’s Suppl. Status Report, Attach., Memorandum from Attorney General Bondi & OMB Director Vought Re: Court Order Regarding Executive Order 14230, ECF No. 32-1. The inclusion of this extra text with derogatory statements about plaintiff, quoted directly from Section 1 statements when the use of Section 1 by the government was specifically enjoined, went “beyond the minimum required” to comply with the Court’s order, as government counsel conceded, Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 20:24-25. As this Court has already noted, this government conduct “hardly appeared to comply with the TRO Order and raised some concern about the general presumption by courts ‘that executive officials will act in good faith.’” Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 25-cv-716, 2025 WL 1207079, at *3 (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2025) (quoting Armstrong v. Exec. Off. of the President, 1 F.3d 1274, 1292-93 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).
22 The government additionally moved for reconsideration of the scope of the injunction, Gov’t’s Mot. Recons., and the parties were directed to include briefing on that motion in the parties’ already-scheduled briefing on their dispositive motions, Min. Order (Apr. 3, 2025). The government’s motion for reconsideration and plaintiff’s motion to amend the Complaint to add all federal departments, agencies and entities subject to and responsible for implementing EO 14230, were resolved in a separate Memorandum and Order. Perkins Coie, 2025 WL 1207079 (granting plaintiff’s oral motion to amend the complaint to include all federal departments, agencies, entities, as well as relevant officials, acting in their official capacity, identified, in consultation with the government, as subject to and responsible for implementing and enforcing EO 14230, and denying as moot the government’s motion for reconsideration, which the government conceded would be rendered moot by plaintiff’s proposed amendment to the complaint). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 29, 2025, with the additional federal agency defendants named. Am. Compl., ECF No. 176.
23 In addition to the parties’ voluminous submissions, twenty-two amicus briefs have been submitted in support of plaintiff from a wide range of interested lawyers and law firms; legal professional organizations; law professors; 346 former state and federal judges; former and current in-house general counsel; former senior government officials; media and press freedom organizations; and organizations including the ACLU, Cato Institute, Institute for Justice, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, among others. A single amicus brief was submitted in support of the government by three gun rights groups and three conservative advocacy organizations. See Br. Amicus Curiae of America’s Future, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Judicial Action Group, & Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund in Supp. of Recons. of the TRO & Gov’t’s MTD (“Br. of America’s Future et al.”), ECF No. 131 (beginning with four Bible verses at the top of the Table of Authorities, see id. at iii, and arguing for expansive Executive Power, while noting the total number of votes and Electoral College margin in favor of President Trump, id. at 23, and listing the injunctions issued by federal courts against the current Trump Administration’s actions, see id. App. 1).
24 Plaintiff also claims that EO 14230 exceeds the President’s constitutional and statutory authority and therefore violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, Pl.’s Mem. at 31-36; see also Am. Compl. ¶¶ 85-98 (Count I), but this claim, as noted supra n.5, is not addressed.
25 This critique of plaintiff’s complaint is somewhat ironic given the government’s lack of clarity in identifying the specific grounds relied upon in seeking dismissal of the claims, compounded by the government’s failure to comply with applicable procedural rules in bringing a cross-motion for summary judgment. See infra n.26.
26 Neither the government’s motion to dismiss itself or its proposed order cites to any procedural rule as the basis for the requested dismissal, see Gov’t’s MTD; id., Proposed Order, ECF No. 43-2), and the government’s memorandum in support likewise contains no clear statement of the procedural rules relied upon as to each claim, leaving the legal bases for the motion to the Court to discern from vague headings used in the government’s memorandum or to tease out of the text of the same document, despite the critical differences in applicable standards depending on which rule is relied upon. Regardless of whether this reflects a strategy to “disguise[] the nature of its motion,” Pl.’s Opp’n at 5, plaintiff requests denial of any intended government cross-motion for summary judgment “for failure to comply with [D.D.C.] Local Rule 7(h)(1), which requires a statement of undisputed material facts supported by record citations,” id. This basis for denial urged by plaintiff need not be resolved since the pending motions are resolved on alternative grounds.
27 Plaintiff’s involvement in litigation is also protected under the First Amendment right to petition the government and thus retaliation on this basis also runs afoul of First Amendment protections, as discussed infra Part III.B.5.
28 Though conceding the use of the Mansfield Rule for interviews “isn’t so problematic,” Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 68:17-18, government counsel suggested the problem lies in the way the program “measur[es] their success,” by “showing percentage increases” of qualified underrepresented talent in certain positions, which the government assumes means the imposition of “targets” and “evaluating people on race, sex, and ethnic-based issues unrelated to them as individuals,” id. at 68:19-23. This assumption about the metrics reported, however, presupposes that the qualified underrepresented talent considered are given a positive preference when other explanations are just as plausible for percentage increases of such talent. The principle underlying such programs is that negative biases against qualified underrepresented lawyers, due to their race, sex, gender identity, disability or ethnicity, reduce their likelihood of being selected as frequently to interview for positions for which they are qualified, but when firms consider more underrepresented talent on their own individual merit and not disadvantaged for the traits “unrelated to them as individuals,” id. at 68:23, firms tend to hire more of these individuals on their own merit. In other words, the metrics might mean exactly the opposite of what the government assumes to be true, and exactly what the government says it wants. In any event, both parties agree that this Court need not rule on the constitutionality of the Mansfield Rule to decide this case. Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 69:22-72:3 (government counsel acknowledging this point); id. at 103:25- 104:15 (plaintiff’s counsel acknowledging the same). The government’s mere assertions—just like the government’s possibly erroneous assumptions about the Mansfield Rule—provide no evidence of any illegal or discriminatory practice by plaintiff.
29 For context, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff’s reference to getting “close to a billion soon” may include the five law firm deals announced by the White House just two days later, where each firm promised either $100 million or $125 million in free legal work. See, e.g., Eric Tucker, Trump Reaches Deals with 5 Law Firms, Allowing Them to Avoid Prospect of Punishing Executive Orders, Associated Press (Apr. 11, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/trump-law-fi ... 315f5f96f1.
30 It is also worth noting that the government could not succeed even under the Umbehr balancing test, because it has failed to show any legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for taking the actions directed in EO 14230’s Section 3 (or the Order more broadly). In asserting that plaintiff engages in “racial discrimination” and that this allegation justifies the actions in Section 3, Gov’t’s Mem. at 23, the government offers no evidence to support this claim, while plaintiff has a legitimate interest in using its First Amendment rights to discuss the importance of diversity in the legal field. When it comes to balancing, “something . . . outweighs nothing every time.” Kowal v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 107 F.4th 1018, 1031 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
31 The EEOC may conduct a “directed investigation”—an investigation without a charge—for “possible age-based discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and sex-based pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act (EPA).” Directed Investigations, U.S. EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/directedinvestigations#_ ednref3 (last visited Apr. 29, 2025) (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 211(a), 626). Neither is relevant to this case.
32 Despite the more limited scope of the suspension and review of security clearances ordered in the Covington Memorandum, government counsel was unaware of the status of the investigation or whether any clearances had been restored. Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 43:8-14.
33 Both parties acknowledge that some security clearances held by plaintiff’s employees when EO 14230 was issued were “granted in the context of their fulfilling their obligations as lawyers to represent their clients.” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 89 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 36); Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s SMF at 3 (noting that ¶ 89 is undisputed). The suspension of security clearances necessary for representation in particular matters potentially implicates the rights to counsel discussed, but no evidence of such impact has been submitted in this case, and thus this issue is not addressed.
34 In addition to its liberty interest in petitioning the government, plaintiff claims additional protected interests were violated, in contravention of due process, including plaintiff and its employees’ right to follow their chosen profession, Am. Compl. ¶ 101; the Firm’s liberty interest in its reputation, id.; and the Firm’s property interest in its private contractual relationships with clients, id.; see also Pl.’s Mem. at 23-24. The merits of these additional claimed violations need not be addressed given resolution of summary judgment based on plaintiff’s interest in petitioning the government.
35 Though the government disputes that plaintiff has “demonstrated standing to challenge Section 3 insofar as it regulates its clients,” Gov’t’s Mem. at 19, plaintiff alleges a procedural due process violation based on plaintiff’s own liberty or property interests, see Pl.’s Mem. at 21 (raising only claims relating to the Firm and its attorneys), and thus the government’s position on this point is irrelevant.
36 One amicus makes a vigorous argument that the Order is an “executive branch act[] of attainder” prohibited under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as a “deprivation[] of liberty without due process of law,” Amicus Br. of Prof. Aaron H. Caplan Regarding Attainder (“Caplan Br.”) at 1, ECF No. 132, observing that “[a] legislative branch bill of attainder is tyranny of the majority in its purest form: on majority vote, a person is declared a wrongdoer and punished without trial. An executive branch act of attainder is an even more concentrated form of tyranny,” id. at 10. In many ways, EO 14230 is indistinguishable from a bill of attainder: it targets plaintiff specifically, finds facts and declares plaintiff guilty of “racial discrimination,” “unethical” and “egregious” conduct, and imposes multiple forms of punitive adverse actions, without notice or other judicial process protections. See Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 468 (1977) (defining a bill of attainder as “a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial”).
Placement of the prohibitions on bills of attainder in two sections of Article I, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 3 (“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”); id. § 10, cl. 1 (“No State shall . . . pass any Bill of Attainder.”), has led to the general view that these prohibitions apply only to the legislative branch. See, e.g., Global Relief Found., Inc. v. O’Neill, 315 F.3d 748, 755 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315 (1946)); TRO Hr’g Tr. at 45:15-18 (government counsel arguing that, “just as a pure constitutional matter, that the bill of attainder restriction is only [i]n Article I and not Article II, and so it doesn’t apply to the President”). Yet, this assumption is called into question, particularly where executive orders appear to stand in for laws, by the constitutional text, which, in art. I, § 9, cl. 3, does not expressly limit the prohibition to the Congress, and then, in the following section 10 applies the prohibition to the States, as well as consideration of the history of bills of attainder, see, e.g., Caplan Br. at 13 (citing “the framing-era understanding of legislative supremacy” to explain “the Framers would have felt no need to specify in Art. II that the President could not independently impose attainders” since “[t]he President may only faithfully execute laws that are allowed to exist, so he may not duplicate or unilaterally impose through executive action any type of law forbidden by Art.I, § 9, be it attainder, ex post facto punishment, suspending habeas corpus in peacetime, granting titles of nobility, or establishing preferences among ports of different states.”); Br. of Former Senior Government Officials as Amici Curiae in Supp. of Pl.’s MSJ at 17, ECF No. 104 (“By placing the Bill of Attainder Clauses in Article I, the Framers clearly did not intend to authorize the President to do alone what Congress and the President, acting together, could not.”); Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 HOUS. L. REV. 767, 890, 892 (2016) (describing the revision of a previous version of the constitutional text that limited the prohibition to “The Legislature” and explaining “although bills of attainder were largely passed by legislatures, this is not true of all”); Harold Hongju Koh, Fred Halbhuber, & Inbar Pe’er, No, the President Cannot Issue Bills of Attainder, Just Security (Apr. 9, 2025), https://www.justsecurity.org/110109/pre ... nnotissue- attainder-bills/; see also Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144 (1951) (Black, J., concurring) (“I cannot believe that the authors of the Constitution, who outlawed the bill of attainder, inadvertently endowed the executive with power to engage in the same tyrannical practices that had made the bill such an odious institution.”).
The scope of the bills of attainder prohibition and application of this prohibition to unilateral presidential action not otherwise authorized by Congress, is worth further study and consideration. In this case, however, where plaintiff has not raised a stand-alone bill of attainder claim, see Compl. ¶ 96 (mentioning bill of attainder only as part of the Count I ultra vires claim), nor have the parties extensively briefed the question, see Pl.’s Mem. at 26 (suggesting as part of its ultra vires claim in Count I, that EO 14230 “shares the essential features of a bill of attainder”); see generally Gov’t’s Mem.; Gov’t’s Opp’n (not addressing the issue), and both parties took the position that the prohibition on bills of attainder only applies to Congress, see TRO Hr’g Tr. at 45:15-18 (government counsel making this argument); Pl.’s TRO Mot. at 18 (“To be sure, the Bill of Attainder Clause, by its terms, does not apply to the Executive Branch.” (citation omitted)), consideration of this issue must be left to another day.
37 The Fourth Circuit’s stay decision in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education drew three separate opinions from the emergency panel, each drawing attention to ripeness concerns, without disturbing the district court’s finding of vagueness. See, e.g., Order, Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Offs. in Higher Educ., No. 25- 1189, ECF No. 29 (4th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025) at 4 and n.2 (Diaz, C.J., concurring) (observing that “neither Order ever defines DEI or its component terms,” noting that “[a]s a result, it’s unclear what types of programs—formal or informal—the administration seeks to eliminate,” but “where the Orders only purport to direct executive policy and actors, we don’t find vagueness principles outcome determinative,” and cautioning “that agency action that goes beyond the narrow scope…could implicate Fifth amendment vagueness concerns”); id. at 9 (Rushing, J., concurring) (“[T]his case does not challenge any particular agency action implementing the Executive Orders.”); id. at 7 (Harris, J., concurring) (noting the difference between “[w]hat the Orders say on their face and how they are enforced”). This concern does not exist in the instant case, where EO 14230’s Section 1 has already found “good cause to conclude” that plaintiff “racially discriminates” with implementation of “‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies,” EO 14230 § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781, and directed enforcement actions on that basis, id. §§ 2-5, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781-82. Moreover, concerns about “enjoin[ing] nondefendants from taking actions”, Order at 9, Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Offs. in Higher Educ., No. 25-1189, ECF No. 29 (4th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025) (Rushing, J., concurring) (emphasis in original), no longer exist here given the filing of plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
38 Though the government broadly asserts that “[d]iversity initiatives have always been legally suspect and [are] especially so since the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (“SFFA”), 600 U.S. 181 (2023),” Gov’t’s Mem. at 11—which seems to be an expansive view of the actual holding in that case, which considered challenges to the college “admissions systems used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina,” 600 U.S. at 190—the government confirmed that no determination must be made regarding the lawfulness of certain employment policies and practices adopted by plaintiff, such as the Mansfield Rule and the SEO Fellowship program, to resolve the pending summary judgment motion, Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 71:6-23, 72:4-16, even though the Fact Sheet alludes (with distorted descriptions) to both programs as a basis for the Order, see EO 14230 Fact Sheet (citing as basis for “accus[ing Firm] of racial[] discriminat[ion]” that “Perkins Coie has publicly announced racial percentage quotas for hiring and promotions . . . and excluded applicants from fellowships based on race”).
_______________
Notes:
1 Amici law professors highlight that the right to counsel was included in the Bill of Rights in large part to avoid “executive control of access to counsel,” which “could distort the administration of justice.” Br. of Amici Curiae 363 Law Professors in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. & for Declaratory & Permanent Injunctive Relief (“Law Professors’ Br.”) at 11, ECF No. 49; see also id. at 11-15 (reviewing the history of the inclusion of this right in the Bill of Rights and collecting authorities). The historical backdrop for these provisions, as Justice Black explained, was in direct response to the “willingness . . . of the courts of England to make ‘short shrift’ of unpopular and uncooperative groups,” including “lawyers whose greatest crime was to dare to defend unpopular causes.” Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117, 139-40 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting); see also id. at 138-41 (reviewing the history and protections adopted in response).
2 See Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. & Declaratory & Permanent Injunctive Relief (“Pl.’s MSJ”), Ex. 4, Declaration of Christopher N. Manning, Partner, Williams & Connolly (“Manning Decl.”), Ex. 27 (“EO 14230”), ECF No. 39-4 at 127.
3 This message has been heard and heeded by some targeted law firms, as reflected in their choice, after reportedly direct dealings with the current White House, to agree to demand terms, perhaps viewing this choice as the best alternative for their clients and employees. Yet, some clients may harbor reservations about the implications of such deals for the vigorous and zealous representation to which they are entitled from ethically responsible counsel, since at least the publicized deal terms appear only to forestall, rather than eliminate, the threat of being targeted in an Executive Order. As amici former and current general counsel caution, a “fundamental premise of the rule of law” is that “when parties challenge the government, their lawyers ‘oppose[] the designated representatives of the State,’ and ‘[t]he system assumes that adversarial testing will ultimately advance the public interest in truth and fairness.’ This safeguard against government overreach fails when attorneys cannot ‘advanc[e] the undivided interests of [their] client[s]’ for fear of reprisal from the government.” Br. of Amici Curiae Former & Current General Counsel Supporting Pl. Perkins Coie, LLP at 9-10, ECF No. 99 (alterations in original; internal citation omitted) (quoting Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981)). Only when lawyers make the choice to challenge rather than back down when confronted with government action raising non-trivial constitutional issues can a case be brought to court for judicial review of the legal merits, as was done in this case by plaintiff Perkins Coie LLP, plaintiff’s counsel Williams & Connolly, and the lawyers, firms, organizations, and individuals who submitted amicus briefs in this case. As one amicus aptly put it, “[o]ur judicial system is under serious threat when determining whether to file an Amicus Curiae brief could be a career ending decision. But, when lawyers are apprehensive about retribution simply for filing a brief adverse to the government, there is no other choice but to do so.” Amicus Curiae Br. of Pickering Legal LLC in Supp. of Pl.’s Request for a Permanent Injunction at 6, ECF No. 93. If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.
4 The moniker “defendants” is commonly used to refer to federal government components sued in civil cases, just as the named government components generally refer to themselves in briefing here. See, e.g., Gov’t’s Mem. at 4; Gov’t’s Opp’n to Pl.’s MSJ (“Gov’t’s Opp’n”) at 5, ECF No. 143. In contrast, plaintiff refers to the named defendants in this lawsuit as “the government.” E.g., Pl.’s Mem. of L. in Supp. of Pl.’s MSJ (“Pl.’s Mem.”) at 12, ECF No. 39-1; Pl.’s Mem. of L. in Opp’n to Gov’t’s MTD (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 1, ECF No. 142. Here, the challenged action is an Executive Order, issued by the President of the United States, that directs compliance by the entirety of the Executive Branch of the federal government. See, e.g., EO 14230 § 3(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782 (directing action by “[t]he heads of all agencies”). Using “the government” to refer to defendants thus more accurately encapsulates the circumstances of this case, where the challenge is not merely to the actions of a finite number of Executive branch components but is to the actions of the Executive branch writ large.
5 Plaintiff additionally claims, in Count I of the Amended Complaint, that Sections 1, 2(b), 3, and 5 of EO 14230 violate the Constitution’s inherent separation of powers through the “Unconstitutional Exercise of Judicial Authority,” Am. Compl. at 81 (Count I header); see also Pl.’s Mem. at 34 (arguing these provisions of the Order “invade[] the Judiciary’s authority”). Since resolution of plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments entitles plaintiff to summary judgment and the full relief sought in this case, see generally infra Parts III.B., C., the separation of powers claim asserted in Count I need not be considered.
6 Unless otherwise noted, cited facts submitted by the parties are undisputed. See Pl.’s SMF; Gov’t’s Opp’n, Ex. 1, Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s SMF (“Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s SMF”), ECF No. 143-1.
7 As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion, an appeal of this sanctions order against President Trump and his counsel remains pending in the Eleventh Circuit. Trump et al. v. Clinton et al., No. 23-10387 (11th Cir.) (appeal docketed Feb. 6, 2023).
8 For relevant context, Elias represented Democrat Bill Nelson, Florida’s then-sitting U.S. Senator, in the recount against Republican candidate Rick Scott. See, e.g., Kenneth P. Vogel & Patricia Mazzei, In Florida Recount Fight, Democratic Lawyer Draws Plaudits and Fire, N.Y. Times (Nov. 14, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/us/p ... count.html.
9 President Trump’s statements about plaintiff have persisted even up to April 23, 2025, the day of the motions hearing on the parties’ pending cross-motions in this case, when he posted on Truth Social, among other things, that “I’m suing the law firm of Perkins Coie for their egregious and unlawful acts, in particular the conduct of a specific member of this firm.” @RealDonaldTrump, Truth Social (Apr. 23, 2025, 9:35 AM), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 306195784; see also Trump Says He is Suing Perkins Coie Law Firm, Reuters (Apr. 23, 2025, 9:59 AM), https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-say ... rkinscoie- law-firm-2025-04-23/. Though President Trump incorrectly describes his role in this litigation as the party bringing the lawsuit, this slip accurately reflects his intent to target plaintiff based on his negative view of the Firm.
10 Plaintiff’s SMF identifies the challenged Executive Order as “14185,” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 84, but the complaint in Shilling challenges Executive Order 14183, Compl. ¶ 1, Shilling v. Trump et al., No. 2:25-cv-241 (W.D. Wash.) (filed Feb. 6, 2025); see also Shilling v. United States, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 926866, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 27, 2025) (noting that the lawsuit challenged Executive Order 14183).
11 The same Executive Order was challenged in another lawsuit, filed in this District, in which another Judge on this Court also granted a preliminary injunction. See Talbott v. United States, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 842332, at *1, 3 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2025) (enjoining enforcement of Executive Order 14183). Perkins Coie was not involved in that litigation. Pl.’s SMF ¶ 87.
12 EO 14230 § 2(a) states in full: “The Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and all other relevant heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take steps consistent with applicable law to suspend any active security clearances held by individuals at Perkins Coie, pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.” EO 14230 § 2(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781.
13 EO 14230 § 2(b) states in full: “The Office of Management and Budget shall identify all Government goods, property, material, and services, including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, provided for the benefit of Perkins Coie. The heads of all agencies providing such material or services shall, to the extent permitted by law, expeditiously cease such provision.” EO 14230 § 2(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781.
14 EO 14230 § 3(a) states in full: “To prevent the transfer of taxpayer dollars to Federal contractors whose earnings subsidize, among other things, racial discrimination, falsified documents designed to weaponize the Government against candidates for office, and anti-democratic election changes that invite fraud and distrust, Government contracting agencies shall, to the extent permissible by law, require Government contractors to disclose any business they do with Perkins Coie and whether that business is related to the subject of the Government contract.” EO 14230 § 3(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781.
15 EO 14230 § 3(b) states in pertinent part: “The heads of all agencies shall review all contracts with Perkins Coie or with entities that disclose doing business with Perkins Coie under subsection (a) of this section. To the extent permitted by law, the heads of agencies shall: . . . (i) take appropriate steps to terminate any contract, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, for which Perkins Coie has been hired to perform any service; [and] (ii) otherwise align their agency funding decisions with the interests of the citizens of the United States; with the goals and priorities of my Administration as expressed in executive actions, especially Executive Order 14147 of January 20, 2025 (Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government); and as heads of agencies deem appropriate. Within 30 days of the date of this order, all agencies shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget an assessment of contracts with Perkins Coie or with entities that do business with Perkins Coie effective as of the date of this order and any actions taken with respect to those contracts in accordance with this order.” EO 14230 § 3(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782.
16 EO 14230 § 4(a) states in full: “The Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall review the practices of representative large, influential, or industry leading law firms for consistency with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including whether large law firms: reserve certain positions, such as summer associate spots, for individuals of preferred races; promote individuals on a discriminatory basis; permit client access on a discriminatory basis; or provide access to events, trainings, or travel on a discriminatory basis.” EO14230 § 4(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782.
17 EO 14230 § 4(b) states in full: “The Attorney General, in coordination with the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and in consultation with State Attorneys General as appropriate, shall investigate the practices of large law firms as described in subsection (a) of this section who do business with Federal entities for compliance with race-based and sex-based non-discrimination laws and take any additional actions the Attorney General deems appropriate in light of the evidence uncovered.” EO14230 § 4(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782.
18 EO 14230 § 5(a) states in full: “The heads of all agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide guidance limiting official access from Federal Government buildings to employees of Perkins Coie when such access would threaten the national security of or otherwise be inconsistent with the interests of the United States. In addition, the heads of all agencies shall provide guidance limiting Government employees acting in their official capacity from engaging with Perkins Coie employees to ensure consistency with the national security and other interests of the United States.” EO 14230 § 5(a), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782.
19 EO 14230 § 5(b) states in full: “Agency officials shall, to the extent permitted by law, refrain from hiring employees of Perkins Coie, absent a waiver from the head of the agency, made in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, that such hire will not threaten the national security of the United States.” EO 14230 § 5(b), 90 Fed. Reg. at 11782.
20 The government disputes this statement “as factual inference or conclusion,” Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s SMF at 5 (responding to ¶ 161), without explaining how the statements made by plaintiff’s declarant, a Firm partner familiar with the “business and operations” of the firm, 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 1, including the impact on the Firm’s revenue from client terminations occurring in the days immediately following the issuance of EO 14230, may be criticized as based on “inference or conclusion,” rather than direct knowledge. The government’s “dispute” rings hollow, particularly given (1) the temporal closeness in time between the issuance of EO 14230 and the client reactions, (2) the long-term relationships between plaintiff and the clients who terminated business with the law firm, and (3) the Order’s terms, which were designed to hamper the effectiveness of plaintiff’s representation of clients before federal agencies, as discussed further infra in Part III.B.4.
21 The government’s supplemental status report included as an attachment the guidance memorandum, dated March 20, 2025, sent by the Attorney General and OMB Director to all agencies, pursuant to the Court’s order clarifying the scope of the TRO. This second guidance memorandum, unlike the first guidance memorandum sent on March 18, 2025, included, for the first time, the following extra text: “The Executive Branch’s position is that Executive Order 14230 is permissible, and that the Court’s order was erroneous. The government reserves the right to take all necessary and legal actions in response to the ‘dishonest and dangerous’ conduct of Perkins Coie LLP, as set forth in Executive Order 14230.” Gov’t’s Suppl. Status Report, Attach., Memorandum from Attorney General Bondi & OMB Director Vought Re: Court Order Regarding Executive Order 14230, ECF No. 32-1. The inclusion of this extra text with derogatory statements about plaintiff, quoted directly from Section 1 statements when the use of Section 1 by the government was specifically enjoined, went “beyond the minimum required” to comply with the Court’s order, as government counsel conceded, Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 20:24-25. As this Court has already noted, this government conduct “hardly appeared to comply with the TRO Order and raised some concern about the general presumption by courts ‘that executive officials will act in good faith.’” Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 25-cv-716, 2025 WL 1207079, at *3 (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2025) (quoting Armstrong v. Exec. Off. of the President, 1 F.3d 1274, 1292-93 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).
22 The government additionally moved for reconsideration of the scope of the injunction, Gov’t’s Mot. Recons., and the parties were directed to include briefing on that motion in the parties’ already-scheduled briefing on their dispositive motions, Min. Order (Apr. 3, 2025). The government’s motion for reconsideration and plaintiff’s motion to amend the Complaint to add all federal departments, agencies and entities subject to and responsible for implementing EO 14230, were resolved in a separate Memorandum and Order. Perkins Coie, 2025 WL 1207079 (granting plaintiff’s oral motion to amend the complaint to include all federal departments, agencies, entities, as well as relevant officials, acting in their official capacity, identified, in consultation with the government, as subject to and responsible for implementing and enforcing EO 14230, and denying as moot the government’s motion for reconsideration, which the government conceded would be rendered moot by plaintiff’s proposed amendment to the complaint). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 29, 2025, with the additional federal agency defendants named. Am. Compl., ECF No. 176.
23 In addition to the parties’ voluminous submissions, twenty-two amicus briefs have been submitted in support of plaintiff from a wide range of interested lawyers and law firms; legal professional organizations; law professors; 346 former state and federal judges; former and current in-house general counsel; former senior government officials; media and press freedom organizations; and organizations including the ACLU, Cato Institute, Institute for Justice, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, among others. A single amicus brief was submitted in support of the government by three gun rights groups and three conservative advocacy organizations. See Br. Amicus Curiae of America’s Future, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Judicial Action Group, & Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund in Supp. of Recons. of the TRO & Gov’t’s MTD (“Br. of America’s Future et al.”), ECF No. 131 (beginning with four Bible verses at the top of the Table of Authorities, see id. at iii, and arguing for expansive Executive Power, while noting the total number of votes and Electoral College margin in favor of President Trump, id. at 23, and listing the injunctions issued by federal courts against the current Trump Administration’s actions, see id. App. 1).
24 Plaintiff also claims that EO 14230 exceeds the President’s constitutional and statutory authority and therefore violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, Pl.’s Mem. at 31-36; see also Am. Compl. ¶¶ 85-98 (Count I), but this claim, as noted supra n.5, is not addressed.
25 This critique of plaintiff’s complaint is somewhat ironic given the government’s lack of clarity in identifying the specific grounds relied upon in seeking dismissal of the claims, compounded by the government’s failure to comply with applicable procedural rules in bringing a cross-motion for summary judgment. See infra n.26.
26 Neither the government’s motion to dismiss itself or its proposed order cites to any procedural rule as the basis for the requested dismissal, see Gov’t’s MTD; id., Proposed Order, ECF No. 43-2), and the government’s memorandum in support likewise contains no clear statement of the procedural rules relied upon as to each claim, leaving the legal bases for the motion to the Court to discern from vague headings used in the government’s memorandum or to tease out of the text of the same document, despite the critical differences in applicable standards depending on which rule is relied upon. Regardless of whether this reflects a strategy to “disguise[] the nature of its motion,” Pl.’s Opp’n at 5, plaintiff requests denial of any intended government cross-motion for summary judgment “for failure to comply with [D.D.C.] Local Rule 7(h)(1), which requires a statement of undisputed material facts supported by record citations,” id. This basis for denial urged by plaintiff need not be resolved since the pending motions are resolved on alternative grounds.
27 Plaintiff’s involvement in litigation is also protected under the First Amendment right to petition the government and thus retaliation on this basis also runs afoul of First Amendment protections, as discussed infra Part III.B.5.
28 Though conceding the use of the Mansfield Rule for interviews “isn’t so problematic,” Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 68:17-18, government counsel suggested the problem lies in the way the program “measur[es] their success,” by “showing percentage increases” of qualified underrepresented talent in certain positions, which the government assumes means the imposition of “targets” and “evaluating people on race, sex, and ethnic-based issues unrelated to them as individuals,” id. at 68:19-23. This assumption about the metrics reported, however, presupposes that the qualified underrepresented talent considered are given a positive preference when other explanations are just as plausible for percentage increases of such talent. The principle underlying such programs is that negative biases against qualified underrepresented lawyers, due to their race, sex, gender identity, disability or ethnicity, reduce their likelihood of being selected as frequently to interview for positions for which they are qualified, but when firms consider more underrepresented talent on their own individual merit and not disadvantaged for the traits “unrelated to them as individuals,” id. at 68:23, firms tend to hire more of these individuals on their own merit. In other words, the metrics might mean exactly the opposite of what the government assumes to be true, and exactly what the government says it wants. In any event, both parties agree that this Court need not rule on the constitutionality of the Mansfield Rule to decide this case. Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 69:22-72:3 (government counsel acknowledging this point); id. at 103:25- 104:15 (plaintiff’s counsel acknowledging the same). The government’s mere assertions—just like the government’s possibly erroneous assumptions about the Mansfield Rule—provide no evidence of any illegal or discriminatory practice by plaintiff.
29 For context, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff’s reference to getting “close to a billion soon” may include the five law firm deals announced by the White House just two days later, where each firm promised either $100 million or $125 million in free legal work. See, e.g., Eric Tucker, Trump Reaches Deals with 5 Law Firms, Allowing Them to Avoid Prospect of Punishing Executive Orders, Associated Press (Apr. 11, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/trump-law-fi ... 315f5f96f1.
30 It is also worth noting that the government could not succeed even under the Umbehr balancing test, because it has failed to show any legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for taking the actions directed in EO 14230’s Section 3 (or the Order more broadly). In asserting that plaintiff engages in “racial discrimination” and that this allegation justifies the actions in Section 3, Gov’t’s Mem. at 23, the government offers no evidence to support this claim, while plaintiff has a legitimate interest in using its First Amendment rights to discuss the importance of diversity in the legal field. When it comes to balancing, “something . . . outweighs nothing every time.” Kowal v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 107 F.4th 1018, 1031 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
31 The EEOC may conduct a “directed investigation”—an investigation without a charge—for “possible age-based discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and sex-based pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act (EPA).” Directed Investigations, U.S. EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/directedinvestigations#_ ednref3 (last visited Apr. 29, 2025) (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 211(a), 626). Neither is relevant to this case.
32 Despite the more limited scope of the suspension and review of security clearances ordered in the Covington Memorandum, government counsel was unaware of the status of the investigation or whether any clearances had been restored. Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 43:8-14.
33 Both parties acknowledge that some security clearances held by plaintiff’s employees when EO 14230 was issued were “granted in the context of their fulfilling their obligations as lawyers to represent their clients.” Pl.’s SMF ¶ 89 (citing 2nd Burman Decl. ¶ 36); Gov’t’s Resp. to Pl.’s SMF at 3 (noting that ¶ 89 is undisputed). The suspension of security clearances necessary for representation in particular matters potentially implicates the rights to counsel discussed, but no evidence of such impact has been submitted in this case, and thus this issue is not addressed.
34 In addition to its liberty interest in petitioning the government, plaintiff claims additional protected interests were violated, in contravention of due process, including plaintiff and its employees’ right to follow their chosen profession, Am. Compl. ¶ 101; the Firm’s liberty interest in its reputation, id.; and the Firm’s property interest in its private contractual relationships with clients, id.; see also Pl.’s Mem. at 23-24. The merits of these additional claimed violations need not be addressed given resolution of summary judgment based on plaintiff’s interest in petitioning the government.
35 Though the government disputes that plaintiff has “demonstrated standing to challenge Section 3 insofar as it regulates its clients,” Gov’t’s Mem. at 19, plaintiff alleges a procedural due process violation based on plaintiff’s own liberty or property interests, see Pl.’s Mem. at 21 (raising only claims relating to the Firm and its attorneys), and thus the government’s position on this point is irrelevant.
36 One amicus makes a vigorous argument that the Order is an “executive branch act[] of attainder” prohibited under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as a “deprivation[] of liberty without due process of law,” Amicus Br. of Prof. Aaron H. Caplan Regarding Attainder (“Caplan Br.”) at 1, ECF No. 132, observing that “[a] legislative branch bill of attainder is tyranny of the majority in its purest form: on majority vote, a person is declared a wrongdoer and punished without trial. An executive branch act of attainder is an even more concentrated form of tyranny,” id. at 10. In many ways, EO 14230 is indistinguishable from a bill of attainder: it targets plaintiff specifically, finds facts and declares plaintiff guilty of “racial discrimination,” “unethical” and “egregious” conduct, and imposes multiple forms of punitive adverse actions, without notice or other judicial process protections. See Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 468 (1977) (defining a bill of attainder as “a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial”).
Placement of the prohibitions on bills of attainder in two sections of Article I, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 3 (“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”); id. § 10, cl. 1 (“No State shall . . . pass any Bill of Attainder.”), has led to the general view that these prohibitions apply only to the legislative branch. See, e.g., Global Relief Found., Inc. v. O’Neill, 315 F.3d 748, 755 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315 (1946)); TRO Hr’g Tr. at 45:15-18 (government counsel arguing that, “just as a pure constitutional matter, that the bill of attainder restriction is only [i]n Article I and not Article II, and so it doesn’t apply to the President”). Yet, this assumption is called into question, particularly where executive orders appear to stand in for laws, by the constitutional text, which, in art. I, § 9, cl. 3, does not expressly limit the prohibition to the Congress, and then, in the following section 10 applies the prohibition to the States, as well as consideration of the history of bills of attainder, see, e.g., Caplan Br. at 13 (citing “the framing-era understanding of legislative supremacy” to explain “the Framers would have felt no need to specify in Art. II that the President could not independently impose attainders” since “[t]he President may only faithfully execute laws that are allowed to exist, so he may not duplicate or unilaterally impose through executive action any type of law forbidden by Art.I, § 9, be it attainder, ex post facto punishment, suspending habeas corpus in peacetime, granting titles of nobility, or establishing preferences among ports of different states.”); Br. of Former Senior Government Officials as Amici Curiae in Supp. of Pl.’s MSJ at 17, ECF No. 104 (“By placing the Bill of Attainder Clauses in Article I, the Framers clearly did not intend to authorize the President to do alone what Congress and the President, acting together, could not.”); Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 HOUS. L. REV. 767, 890, 892 (2016) (describing the revision of a previous version of the constitutional text that limited the prohibition to “The Legislature” and explaining “although bills of attainder were largely passed by legislatures, this is not true of all”); Harold Hongju Koh, Fred Halbhuber, & Inbar Pe’er, No, the President Cannot Issue Bills of Attainder, Just Security (Apr. 9, 2025), https://www.justsecurity.org/110109/pre ... nnotissue- attainder-bills/; see also Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 144 (1951) (Black, J., concurring) (“I cannot believe that the authors of the Constitution, who outlawed the bill of attainder, inadvertently endowed the executive with power to engage in the same tyrannical practices that had made the bill such an odious institution.”).
The scope of the bills of attainder prohibition and application of this prohibition to unilateral presidential action not otherwise authorized by Congress, is worth further study and consideration. In this case, however, where plaintiff has not raised a stand-alone bill of attainder claim, see Compl. ¶ 96 (mentioning bill of attainder only as part of the Count I ultra vires claim), nor have the parties extensively briefed the question, see Pl.’s Mem. at 26 (suggesting as part of its ultra vires claim in Count I, that EO 14230 “shares the essential features of a bill of attainder”); see generally Gov’t’s Mem.; Gov’t’s Opp’n (not addressing the issue), and both parties took the position that the prohibition on bills of attainder only applies to Congress, see TRO Hr’g Tr. at 45:15-18 (government counsel making this argument); Pl.’s TRO Mot. at 18 (“To be sure, the Bill of Attainder Clause, by its terms, does not apply to the Executive Branch.” (citation omitted)), consideration of this issue must be left to another day.
37 The Fourth Circuit’s stay decision in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education drew three separate opinions from the emergency panel, each drawing attention to ripeness concerns, without disturbing the district court’s finding of vagueness. See, e.g., Order, Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Offs. in Higher Educ., No. 25- 1189, ECF No. 29 (4th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025) at 4 and n.2 (Diaz, C.J., concurring) (observing that “neither Order ever defines DEI or its component terms,” noting that “[a]s a result, it’s unclear what types of programs—formal or informal—the administration seeks to eliminate,” but “where the Orders only purport to direct executive policy and actors, we don’t find vagueness principles outcome determinative,” and cautioning “that agency action that goes beyond the narrow scope…could implicate Fifth amendment vagueness concerns”); id. at 9 (Rushing, J., concurring) (“[T]his case does not challenge any particular agency action implementing the Executive Orders.”); id. at 7 (Harris, J., concurring) (noting the difference between “[w]hat the Orders say on their face and how they are enforced”). This concern does not exist in the instant case, where EO 14230’s Section 1 has already found “good cause to conclude” that plaintiff “racially discriminates” with implementation of “‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies,” EO 14230 § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781, and directed enforcement actions on that basis, id. §§ 2-5, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781-82. Moreover, concerns about “enjoin[ing] nondefendants from taking actions”, Order at 9, Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Offs. in Higher Educ., No. 25-1189, ECF No. 29 (4th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025) (Rushing, J., concurring) (emphasis in original), no longer exist here given the filing of plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
38 Though the government broadly asserts that “[d]iversity initiatives have always been legally suspect and [are] especially so since the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (“SFFA”), 600 U.S. 181 (2023),” Gov’t’s Mem. at 11—which seems to be an expansive view of the actual holding in that case, which considered challenges to the college “admissions systems used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina,” 600 U.S. at 190—the government confirmed that no determination must be made regarding the lawfulness of certain employment policies and practices adopted by plaintiff, such as the Mansfield Rule and the SEO Fellowship program, to resolve the pending summary judgment motion, Mots. Hr’g Tr. at 71:6-23, 72:4-16, even though the Fact Sheet alludes (with distorted descriptions) to both programs as a basis for the Order, see EO 14230 Fact Sheet (citing as basis for “accus[ing Firm] of racial[] discriminat[ion]” that “Perkins Coie has publicly announced racial percentage quotas for hiring and promotions . . . and excluded applicants from fellowships based on race”).
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37503
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Mon May 05, 2025 12:33 am
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 77.1.0.pdf
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION,
611 Pennsylvania Ave. SE #231
Washington, DC 20003,
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., in his official capacity as Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States
1 First Street NE,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
ROBERT J. CONRAD, in his official capacity as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Administrative Office of the United States Courts
One Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, D.C. 20544
Defendants.
Civil Action No.: 25-1232
BACKGROUND
1. For several years, the media and enterprising lawmakers have launched an onslaught to destroy the impartiality and political neutrality of Article III courts and, particularly, the Supreme Court. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh have all faced political and physical threats because of the politicization and weaponization of the law. This lawfare has been led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson, relying upon an ideologically favorable legacy media, to falsely accuse Justices Thomas and Alito of ethical improprieties. Their aim was simple: to chill the judicial independence of these Supreme Court Justices.
2. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 first required Supreme Court Justices to make financial disclosures, yet it never required disclosures of personal hospitality unrelated to official business. But remarkably, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (“Administrative Office”) has recently approved guidance changing the scope of exempt “personal hospitality” activities to be limited to “food, lodging, or entertainment.” The changes were drafted by committees within the Judicial Conference of the United States (“Judicial Conference” or “the Conference”), then approved and published by the Administrative Office in the Federal Register and eventually adopted by the Judicial Conference.
3. Not stopping there, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson zealously accused Justice Thomas of acting willfully to violate the Ethics in Government Act and directed the U.S. Department of Justice to criminally investigate the matter. Similarly, Senator Whitehouse filed an ethics complaint against Justice Alito, accusing him of violating “several canons of judicial ethics.” Letter from Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, to the Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chairman, Judicial Conference of the Supreme Court of the United States, Director, Administrative Office (Sept. 4, 2023).
4. Numerous reviews by the Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure have all led to the same result. The former chair, Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, his successor, Honorable Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., and former Secretary to the Conference, Honorable Thomas F. Hogan, have all issued determinations that the alleged errors and omissions by Justice Thomas were not willful. Yet despite the repeated and conclusive findings for over a decade, Senator Whitehouse and others have not given up their onslaught of attacks.
5. The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are central levers for Senator Whitehouse and Representative Johnson’s lawfare enterprise. The Conference and the Administrative Office have actively accommodated oversight requests from these congressmen concerning their allegations against Justices Thomas and Alito. Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch. The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies. Such agencies must be overseen by the President, not the courts. Judicial relief here not only preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.
COMPLAINT
6. Plaintiff America First Legal Foundation (“AFL”) brings this action against the Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr. and the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, in their official capacities as Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference and Director of the Administrative Office, respectively, to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552.
7. The federal judiciary is the system of courts. These courts are made up of judges who preside over cases and controversies. The executive branch, on the other hand, is responsible for taking care that the laws are faithfully executed and ensuring the proper functioning of the government. Federal courts rely on the executive branch for facility management and security. Federal judges, as officers of the courts, need resources to fulfill their constitutional obligations.
8. Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions. But the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts does exactly that. The Administrative Office is controlled by the Judicial Conference, headed by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts. The Administrative Office is run by an officer appointed by—and subject to removal by—Chief Justice Roberts. 28 U.S.C. § 601.
9. Congress cannot constitutionally delegate to an officer improperly appointed pursuant to Article II powers exceeding those that are informative and investigative in nature. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 137–39 (1976).
10. The Judicial Conference’s duties are executive functions and must be supervised by executive officers who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers. United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1, 6 (2021) (Officers who engage in executive functions and are not nominated by the President “must be directed and supervised by an officer who has been.”).
11. Thus, the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office exercise executive functions and are accordingly subject to FOIA. Accordingly, their refusal to comply with AFL’s FOIA request is unlawful.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Additionally, it may grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq.
13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
PARTIES
14. Plaintiff AFL is a nonprofit organization working to promote the rule of law in the United States, prevent executive overreach, and ensure due process and equal protection for all Americans. AFL’s mission includes promoting government transparency and accountability by gathering official information, analyzing it, and disseminating it through reports, press releases, and/or other media.
15. Defendant, John G. Roberts, Jr., in his official capacity as Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States, is the head of an “agency” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
16. The Judicial Conference of the United States is located at 1 First Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20543.
17. The Judicial Conference is a policymaking body that oversees the Administrative Office and appoints and removes its directors.
18. Defendant, Robert J. Conrad, in his official capacity as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, is the head of an “agency” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
19. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts’ office is located at 1 Columbus Circle NE, Washington, D.C. 20002.
20. The Administrative Office has its own self-contained, organizational structure, composed of over 1,000 employees and numerous committees with distinct functions.
FACTS
21. Recently, the media and liberal lawmakers have sought to undermine the political independence of Article III Courts.
22. Upon information and belief, Senator Whitehouse and Representative Johnson communicated with staff from the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office related to their allegations against Justices Thomas and Alito.
23. On July 30, 2024, AFL submitted FOIA requests to the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office seeking records of communications between the agencies and Senator Whitehouse, Representative Johnson, or any member of their staff. Exhibit 1.
24. On September 6, 2024, Ethan Torrey, Legal Counsel to the Supreme Court of the United States, replied to AFL on behalf of the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office. The response stated the agencies’ belief that both the Conference and the Administrative Office are exempt from the FOIA. Exhibit 2.
25. AFL believes that this decision is a legal error and that the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are subject to FOIA.
The Judicial Conference Is an Executive Agency Subject to FOIA
26. The FOIA incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) definition of “agency,” which means “each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include . . . the courts of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1), 552(f)(1). Specifically included within its definition are “independent establishment[s],” §§ 104, 105, and “any independent regulatory agency[s].” § 552(f)(1).
27. The Judicial Conference is subject to the APA and the FOIA because it is: (1) an independent establishment, and (2) an independent executive agency. Unlike Article III institutions, which are intended to adjudicate, an executive agency holds inherent regulatory powers from which it formulates rules relating to its organization, procedures, or practice requirements. Accord. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1).
28. The Judicial Conference is not a “court of the United States,” nor has it been ordained one by Congress. See 28 U.S.C. § 451.
29. The Conference’s ministerial duty to respond to congressional oversight exemplifies its status as an administrative body rather than a court of law. Congress has asserted that it “created the Judicial Conference by statute, funds the Judicial Conference through appropriations, and enacted the ethics laws the Judicial Conference administers, and so has an obvious interest in overseeing these matters.” Letter from Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights & Henry C. Johnson, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, to Robert Conrad, Director, Administrative Office (June 17, 2024).
30. The Judicial Conference’s organic statute prescribes the agency a variety of regulatory and administrative roles. 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Judicial Conference’s authority to promulgate and amend regulations makes it an independent regulatory agency, subjecting it to the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
31. The Judicial Conference has duties that are independent from the judiciary’s role in resolving cases or controversies, thus qualifying it as an independent establishment, and as such, an agency.
32. The Judicial Conference has the power to “prescribe and modify rules for the exercise of the authority provided in [28 U.S.C. §§ 351 et seq.],” which are required to be carried in effect by “[a]ll judicial officers and employees of the United States.” § 331.
33. The Judicial Conference is required to provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment when proposing rules to be prescribed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 358(c), 2073. Moreover, proposed rules are required to be published in the Federal Register— the official journal that documents rules made by agencies. Procedures for the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and Its Advisory Rules Committees, as codified in Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 1, § 440.20.40.
34. Notably, the Federal Register Act and the APA—acts requiring agencies to provide public notice and an opportunity to participate in policymaking—establish and outline the rulemaking process by which Executive Branch agencies issue legally binding rules. See 44 U.S.C. § 1501. Neither Congress nor courts publish their constitutional pronouncements in the Federal Register.
35. Further, the Judicial Conference’s organic statute authorizes the Conference to create standing committees, whose members are appointed by the Chief Justice, and are authorized to “hold hearings, take sworn testimony, issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, and make necessary and appropriate orders in the exercise of its authority.” Compare 28 U.S.C. § 331 (2021), with Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, 907 (The original enactment of Title 28 of the United States Code did not provide the Judicial Conference with enumerated subpoena authorities. It was not until later statutory amendments that Congress expanded the agency’s executive powers to include issuing and enforcing subpoenas.).
36. The committees’ powers preclude the members from being mere employees; they must be officers. Accordingly, if the Chief Justice does indeed have this power to appoint officers, then he must be acting as an agency head, subjecting the Judicial Conference to the FOIA.
37. The Presiding Officer of the Conference is required to submit to Congress reports of proceedings and recommendations for legislation. 28 U.S.C. § 331. Congress has the authority to direct agencies and administrative officers or employees to report to the legislature, but judges are independent of any Congressional control save for impeachment. Directing the Chief Justice to take such action indicates the Judicial Conference acts as a federal agency.
38. The Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference is a principal officer and is required to be presidentially appointed. The power to further appoint other executive officers of its subsidiary agency, the Administrative Office, reaffirms this fact. 28 U.S.C. § 601.
39. The Administrative Office’s Director, to the extent he engages in executive powers with no superior other than the President, is a principal officer.
The Administrative Office Is an Executive Agency Subject to FOIA
40. As a subsidiary of the Judicial Conference, the Administrative Office is an independent establishment, making it an “agency.” Its substantial performance of executive functions subjects it to the FOIA’s requirements.
41. The Administrative Office is not a court. It has no judicial power, and its officers and employees are not acting as judges when acting pursuant to their Administrative Office roles. See 28 U.S.C. § 607 (expressly prohibiting all officers and employees of the Administrative Office from engaging directly or indirectly in the practice of law in any court of the United States). Further, unlike courts of the United States that require judges to be removed by impeachment, the Director is appointed and removed by the Chief Justice. Id. § 601.
42. The Administrative Office has been responsive to congressional oversight. Letter from Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights & Henry C. Johnson, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, to Robert Conrad, Director, Administrative Office (June 17, 2024); U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2024, report to accompany S. 2309, 118th Cong., 1st sess., July 13, 2023, S. Rep. 118- 61, at 46. It is hornbook administrative law that only executive branch entities, not the courts, are subject to legislative oversight. Russell Wheeler, Justice Thomas, Gift Reporting Rules, and What a Supreme Court Code of Conduct Would and Wouldn’t Accomplish, Brookings (May 1, 2023), https://perma.cc/C7HQ-JHA5. To hold that the Administrative Office is a court is tantamount to concluding that Congress has the power to superintend judges through its oversight power.
43. 28 U.S.C. § 601 plainly states that the Director of the Administrative Office is an officer of an executive agency. (“The Director and Deputy Director shall be deemed to be officers for purposes of title 5, United States Code.”); see 5 U.S.C. § 2104 (defining “officer” as an individual who is: (1) required by law to be appointed by the President, a court, the head of an executive agency, or the Secretary of a military department; (2) “engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law or an Executive act;” and (3) “subject to the supervision” of one of the previously listed authorities “or the Judicial Conference of the United States, while engaged in the performance of the duties of his office.”). Thus, unlike judges who do not require executive supervision, the Director is required to be supervised while performing executive functions as the head of an executive agency.
44. The Administrative Office is an independent agency within the executive because it engages in executive functions.
45. The Director of the Administrative Office exercises core executive functions with vast discretion and autonomy.
46. The Director issues regulations implementing the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019. 28 U.S.C. § 604(i)(5)(A) (“The regulations issued . . . shall be the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management.”). That Act requires the Office of Personnel Management, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Defense—all executive agencies—to issue the same regulations.
47. The Director has complete discretion in fixing the compensation of, and appointing, inferior officers. 28 U.S.C. §§ 602, 604(a)(5), (16)(A).
48. Further, “[a]ll functions of other officers and employees of the Administrative Office and all functions of organizational units of the Administrative Office are vested in the Director,” and even more, “[t]he Director may delegate any of the Director’s functions, powers, duties, and authority . . . to such officers and employees” as he may choose. Id. § 602(d).
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552
49. AFL repeats and reincorporates the preceding paragraphs.
50. AFL properly requested records within the possession, custody, and control of the Defendants.
51. The Defendants have failed to produce the requested records, and statements have been made on their behalf that they will not do so.
52. Accordingly, AFL has exhausted its administrative remedies. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(c)(i).
53. The Defendant has violated the FOIA by failing, within the prescribed time limit, to (i) reasonably search for records responsive to AFL’s FOIA requests; (ii) provide a lawful reason for the withholding of any responsive records; and (iii) segregate exempt information in otherwise non-exempt responsive records.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
AFL respectfully requests this Court:
i. Declare that the records sought by these requests, as described in the foregoing, must be disclosed under 5 U.S.C. § 552;
ii. Declare that the Defendants are subject to the FOIA as independent agencies within the executive branch;
iii. Order the Defendants to conduct searches immediately for all records responsive to AFL’s FOIA requests and demonstrate that they employed search methods reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of responsive records;
iv. Order the Defendants to produce by a date certain all non-exempt records responsive to AFL’s FOIA requests;
v. Award AFL attorney’s fees and costs under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and vi. Grant AFL such other and further relief as this court deems proper.
April 22, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
__________________
/s/ William Scolinos
WILLIAM SCOLINOS (DC Bar No. 90023488)
DANIEL EPSTEIN (DC Bar No. 1009132)
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION
611 Pennsylvania Avenue SE #231
Washington, DC 20003
(301) 965-0179
[email protected]
Counsel for America First Legal Foundation
****************************
Group Founded by Trump Ally Stephen Miller Sues John Roberts in Bid to Control Courts
by Jacob Knutson
Democracy Docket
May 2, 2025
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-al ... ol-courts/
A legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller sued Chief Justice John Roberts in a brazen but unlikely attempt to seize control of the federal court system.
In the lawsuit filed last week, America First Legal (AFL) argued that the Judicial Conference of the U.S. and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts — two key judicial branch bodies that frame policy and handle the basic functions of the federal courts — are executive branch agencies.
“Such agencies must be overseen by the President, not the courts,” the group, represented by attorney Will Scolinos, claimed, adding that the lawsuit “preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.”
The Judicial Conference is a policymaking body for the lower federal courts established by Congress to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The Administrative office handles the nuts and bolts of the federal judiciary, like budgets and organizing court data.
AFL, which dubs itself “the long-awaited answer to the ACLU,” claimed the two judicial bodies are a part of the executive branch by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against them. FOIA strictly applies to the executive branch and independent federal regulatory agencies, but not to Congress or the federal courts.
The group named Roberts as a defendant because the Judicial Conference is headed by the chief justice. It named Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office, as a defendant.
The group argued that it’s necessary to bring the bodies under the executive branch because members of Congress, who have the constitutional authority to define most of the federal court system, asked the Supreme Court in 2023 to create or adopt an ethics code for justices.
The request was in response to allegations that Justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas accepted, and did not disclose, lavish gifts from conservative figures who eventually had business before the court.
“Recently, the media and liberal lawmakers have sought to undermine the political independence of Article III Courts,” the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit is a continuation of the Trump administration’s extensive effort to break down the separation of powers and usurp the constitutional powers of the other federal branches. In targeting the conference and administrative office, AFL is threatening both the courts’ independence and Congress’s authority to organize courts below the Supreme Court.
This is the second time AFL has attempted to FOIA the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office. Last year, the group’s FOIA suit against the bodies quickly failed after the Supreme Court’s legal counsel said the information act did not apply to judicial branch entities.
Miller left AFL in January to rejoin the White House but has retained close ties to the group, which has not named a new president since his departure.
AFL recently promoted reporting from Axios indicating that the group is “a key part of Miller’s larger mission to make diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs illegal across the country” and has “become a private enforcement arm of the White House’s assault on DEI.”
Correction: This story originally reported that America First Legal is led by Stephen Miller. In fact, Miller founded the group but left earlier this year to rejoin the White House. We regret the error.
********************
Trump adviser’s group SUES THE SUPREME COURT as feud erupts
Brian Tyler Cohen
May 4, 2025
Transcript
this is Democracy Watch mark I'm going
to put a a headline on the screen that I
had to read five separate times and then
ask you offline if it was actually real
this is the headline from Democracy
Docket group founded by Trump ally
Steven Miller sues John Roberts in a bid
to control the courts john Roberts the
chief justice of the United States is
being sued by a group that is uh was
founded by by Donald Trump's own adviser
Steven Miller what in the world is
happening here yeah so I got to give
people a little bit of a peek behind the
curtain because it is true literally
Brian was like "Okay I saw this on
democracy but this isn't real." And I
literally had to show him the lawsuit to
convince him that that yes this group
Brian is suing the chief justice of the
United States claiming that the judicial
conference okay this is the entity that
oversees the budget uh and the operation
of the US uh court system that it is
actually in in this group's uh
estimation it is actually not part of
the courts it is wait for it part of the
executive branch and should fall under
Donald Trump's authority so what what is
what was their contention within within
the lawsuit what is what is the crux of
what they're trying to do of what Steven
Miller's group is trying to do so I have
to say the lawsuit you know is is is odd
it starts as a as laying out a series of
grievances and the first grievance it
lays out is that it believes that um
Senator uh Sheldon White House and
Representative Hank Johnson who's a
Democrat from Georgia um are being too
mean uh to Supreme Court justices
particularly Justice Thomas Alo and
Kavanaaugh uh and that as a result um
that the goal of these Democrats in
Congress is to quote kill the judicial
independence of these Supreme Court
justices so if not for Sheldon White
House and and the other Democrats
uh bullying bullying the Clarence
Thomas' of the world and uh and Samuel
Letos of the world if if not for if not
for them they would be able to really
exercise their judicial independence
that's the problem here is that they're
not is that that they're being bullied
by the overbearing Democrats correct
that's right the problem in the federal
judiciary according to this the first
paragraph of this lawsuit is that uh it
is not the White House or the
Republicans who are threatening judicial
independence it is actually the
Democrats who are threatening judicial
independence i I what I would give for
the Democrats to be 10% as aggressive
and overbearing as Republicans frame
them as being i would love I mean to
live in a world where we had the
Democrats who were just so strong and
aggressive and hostile that they could
actually impact what this Supreme Court
is doing look so that's how the lawsuit
begins and you know by the way kudos to
Senator White House and Congressman uh
Johnson that you've made it into this uh
into this screed of theirs but what they
really are saying is that the part of
the judicial the part of the judiciary
the judicial conference the
administrative body that oversees the
courts that because it is an
administrative entity it administers it
administers the court system uh and by
the way uh the chief justice is the head
of that which is why John Roberts is
named um that that because it's an
administrative body it needs to sit in
the executive branch and be controlled
by Donald Trump so like at the end of
this rainbow they say would be a the
court systems administration the
administration of the court system would
not be under the chief justice but would
be subject to the whims of Donald Trump
i mean don't don't they recognize the
obvious fundamental problem here which
is that we have three co-equal branches
of government and they are literally
trying to say that one of those branches
of government belongs to sits beneath uh
the executive branch uh yes that is what
they want i mean I understand I
understand why they're trying to do this
is because they want to assert control
they've already they already own the
legislative branch because Donald Trump
could you know could could ask uh any of
these congressional Republicans to
sacrifice their firstborn and they would
say "How about our second born too but
really the the biggest bull work against
the executive branch's overreach um has
been the court system thus far." And so
this is basically saying "You think that
you are a co-equal branch of government
but in fact we own you." That's right we
admin we should be in charge of
administering your budget and and and
how you operate and all of that that
that should be within the purview of the
the White House and the executive branch
and of course since they believe in
what's referred to as the unitary
executive theory it literally would mean
at the whim of of Donald Trump um and
and all of this because as I said they
believe that Clarence Thomas uh uh
Justice Kavanaaugh uh and Justice Alo uh
have all been bullied uh and that this
is their this is therefore essential
right they've been bullied and that's
why they're not allowed to exercise any
uh any judicial independence and
judicial independence right if if if
only uh the Democrats hadn't bullied
them so much they would be they would be
more more neutral but I guess uh alas
that's where that's where it stands
right now mark I would ask what does
this look like in practice does this
mean if they're successful with this
whole bid which I don't presume is going
to be successful we can talk about that
that in a moment but let's say we have
judges for example who dain to uh to to
issue rulings in accordance with the law
or the constitution that this White
House isn't happy with does that mean
that they could basically strip the the
budget um of away from certain judges
whose rulings they don't like or student
or certain um uh circuit court
jurisdictions whose rulings they don't
like um I think what they would say is
yes i think that what they they don't
flesh it out in exactly those terms but
I think what they would say is that the
administration of the courts um you know
how the budgets how money gets
appropriated uh you know to different
courouses or different judicial
districts perhaps the ethics rules you
know one of the reasons why they single
out Senator White House and Congressman
Johnson is because they have been
critics of these three Supreme Court
justices about ethics and of course the
judicial conference has an ethics regime
there's a question about whether or not
it has been appropriately vigorously
applied to the Supreme Court uh but it
is definitely applied to lower courts so
it's literally you know everything about
how the courts operate how judges health
care insurance you know everything about
the the administration of the courts
other than um uh other than how the
judges themselves hear cases and rule
and so yes they could target judges who
they didn't like judicial districts that
they wanted to favor or disfavor um and
uh and all of this is summed up in one
particular paragraph where they say the
judicial conference's duties are
executive functions and must be
supervised by executive officers who are
appointed and accountable to other
executive officers namely Donald J trump
right you know the the the interesting
part of this is that we don't have to
guess what what that looks like with the
Trump administration because all we have
to do is look at how they're comporting
themselves as it relates to these
universities uh I mean they just
stripped away Harvard's tax or they
tried to strip away Harvard's tax exempt
status and so we've already seen the
ways in which they will use uh finances
for example to be able to to wield it as
a cudel against their political
opponents and so if they're doing it
with universities if they're doing it
with law firms if they're doing it with
media outlets if they're doing it with
these tech billionaires clearly they're
going to they're going to use the same
playbook when they go after uh when they
go after these court systems and these
judges depending on whether they find
their rulings favorable or disfavorable
yeah and this is you know just the next
step in the authoritarian playbook that
we see from the Trump administration and
from from its allies now I do want to
say and you said we'd get to this this
lawsuit's not going to prevail i mean
like I mean this is in some sense I I
have to hope for the benefit of the
lawyers who put their names on the
bottom of this uh this pleading uh that
this is aimed at making a point uh
because uh I don't believe that the
federal uh I don't believe that the
federal district court uh in the
District of Columbia is going to rule
against uh the Supreme Court Chief
Justice uh in his ability to administer
the judicial branch and I don't suspect
that they think that the that the DC
circuit or the Supreme Court are going
to have that so I think that this is
them you know trying to both make a
point but also you know more seriously
try to put some pressure you know try to
try to put some leverage here against
the courts and maybe get a couple of
balls called strikes uh that would have
otherwise been called balls and that's
exactly where I wanted to dig in because
clearly they know that this isn't going
to pan out as they would hope it would
pan out in in this you know ideal
version of of uh of this um effort but
really can you speak on the the fact
that they are just trying to ultimately
intimidate these courts into doing what
they want them to do by showing that
they're not afraid to take as aggressive
a posture as they need to to try and get
their way do you think that's going to
have any impact on Look I I don't
presume it'll have some impact on the
Supreme Court who recognizes its own
autonomy at least most of the Supreme
Court justices but but what about the
impact that this could have on district
courts or appeals courts yeah i mean
look that's I think you've asked the
right question because you know I think
what they're basically saying is boy it
would be awfully terrible if something
happened to your your court your your
court system there um and because you
know even if they don't win this lawsuit
as I said I don't think they're going to
win this lawsuit the president can still
veto legislation he can still propose he
as you say he basically controls
Congress he can essentially dictate to
Congress what they do by law you know
what ethics rules do they put what
ethics rules do they repeal what
budgetary changes do they make to uh to
uh different districts do they create
additional circuits do they split
divisions do they put rules about which
judges from where can hear what kind of
cases right so I think that this is
meant to probably illustrate that the
Trump world the broader uh MAGA uh uh
universe is unhappy with how the courts
are being administered and again it may
not affect the US Supreme Court uh but
at the lower levels because they're
looking to trying to gain every
advantage they can because they are
frankly losing so many cases the
administration is losing so many cases
right now they're trying to affect that
will it work boy I hope it doesn't work
yeah uh I hope that the judges stand up
to it and we've seen a lot of evidence
of of some brave judges standing up to
the Trump administration but I think
that that's what they're what the Trump
what the MAGA world is hoping let's
finish off with this and and and I don't
presume that you know I'm going to get
as straight an answer as I would like to
get here but in the event that Trump
does go after the the US Supreme Court
here do you think that that could have
some type of a a backfiring effect in
that by virtue of trying to to assert
their control over the Supreme Court
really the Supreme Court has the ability
to push back and we've seen a lot of
these cases bubble up to the Supreme
Court that's generally a safe space for
this administration oftentimes they want
their cases to come up to the Supreme
Court because they know that that's
where they have the best chance of
succeeding but do you think that by
taking as aggressive a posture as they
are by really jumping the shark as it
relates to to their authority um and
trying to to undermine the Supreme
Court's authority do you think that the
Supreme Court could push back and maybe
not offer uh you know as as favorable an
environment for this administration as
they might hope yeah look I I've said
for some time now that I thought that
the administration was making a huge
mistake in how it's approaching the
courts because it it has always struck
me that if the administration played
nice with the courts you know they they
respected their rulings they were
respectful in their interaction with the
judges they appealed the cases that they
lost but they did it in ways that showed
deference to the judiciary they didn't
threaten judges with impeachment they
didn't Their allies were not filing
lawsuits like this that at the end of
the day you know it's a 6-3 conservative
court right you know they get what they
want most of the time yeah and it's a 63
conservative court that by the way has a
pretty you know when you count when you
count heads of the justice there has a
pretty pro strong uh executive strong
pro presidency bent to it yeah so it's
always struck to me that it struck me
that if they had just approached things
that way they'd actually do pretty well
and that what they're actually doing is
playing into the hands of people like me
and like you who who don't want them to
succeed by being so antagonistic to the
justice i mean this isn't going to win
them a single vote in a single case on
the US Supreme Court like you know
Justice Thomas and Justice uh Kavanaaugh
and and and and um uh and Justice Alo I
am sure are shagrined not pleased by
this like they don't need some group
filing a lawsuit against the chief
justice on their behalf they are more
than capable of maintaining their own
judicial independence from whatever
criticism they get from a senator or
from the entire Senate or from Congress
and so I think that this is actually
going to backfire i suspect it already
has started to backfire that one of the
reasons why you've seen the Supreme
Court in you know in the um the CA the
Goolog case as I refer to it where you
know rule as strongly as it did is
because that was a case that in which
the administration was flouting the
courts and so you know I hate to say I
hope the administration continues down
this path because it's not good for it's
not good for democracy it's not good for
you know relations within the branches
but in some ways i think stuff like this
stunts like this are only going to
redound to their detriment and to the
benefit of those of us who want the
judiciary to be stiffer in its spine
versus the Trump administration well
look I I think that this is an
especially uh interesting and uh and and
important story to cover uh I I haven't
seen it anywhere but Democracy Docket
and so I would highly recommend for
everybody watching right now not just to
support the invaluable work of Mark and
his team um but also to to really be
able to to get the full breadth of their
fearless independent journalism so I'll
put the link to Democracy Docket right
here on the screen and also in the post
description of this video please make
sure to sign up i'm Brian Teller Cohen
i'm Mark Elias this is Democracy Watch
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION,
611 Pennsylvania Ave. SE #231
Washington, DC 20003,
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., in his official capacity as Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States
1 First Street NE,
Washington, D.C. 20543.
ROBERT J. CONRAD, in his official capacity as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Administrative Office of the United States Courts
One Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, D.C. 20544
Defendants.
Civil Action No.: 25-1232
BACKGROUND
1. For several years, the media and enterprising lawmakers have launched an onslaught to destroy the impartiality and political neutrality of Article III courts and, particularly, the Supreme Court. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh have all faced political and physical threats because of the politicization and weaponization of the law. This lawfare has been led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson, relying upon an ideologically favorable legacy media, to falsely accuse Justices Thomas and Alito of ethical improprieties. Their aim was simple: to chill the judicial independence of these Supreme Court Justices.
2. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 first required Supreme Court Justices to make financial disclosures, yet it never required disclosures of personal hospitality unrelated to official business. But remarkably, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (“Administrative Office”) has recently approved guidance changing the scope of exempt “personal hospitality” activities to be limited to “food, lodging, or entertainment.” The changes were drafted by committees within the Judicial Conference of the United States (“Judicial Conference” or “the Conference”), then approved and published by the Administrative Office in the Federal Register and eventually adopted by the Judicial Conference.
3. Not stopping there, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson zealously accused Justice Thomas of acting willfully to violate the Ethics in Government Act and directed the U.S. Department of Justice to criminally investigate the matter. Similarly, Senator Whitehouse filed an ethics complaint against Justice Alito, accusing him of violating “several canons of judicial ethics.” Letter from Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, to the Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chairman, Judicial Conference of the Supreme Court of the United States, Director, Administrative Office (Sept. 4, 2023).
4. Numerous reviews by the Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure have all led to the same result. The former chair, Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, his successor, Honorable Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., and former Secretary to the Conference, Honorable Thomas F. Hogan, have all issued determinations that the alleged errors and omissions by Justice Thomas were not willful. Yet despite the repeated and conclusive findings for over a decade, Senator Whitehouse and others have not given up their onslaught of attacks.
5. The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are central levers for Senator Whitehouse and Representative Johnson’s lawfare enterprise. The Conference and the Administrative Office have actively accommodated oversight requests from these congressmen concerning their allegations against Justices Thomas and Alito. Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch. The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies. Such agencies must be overseen by the President, not the courts. Judicial relief here not only preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.
COMPLAINT
6. Plaintiff America First Legal Foundation (“AFL”) brings this action against the Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr. and the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, in their official capacities as Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference and Director of the Administrative Office, respectively, to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552.
7. The federal judiciary is the system of courts. These courts are made up of judges who preside over cases and controversies. The executive branch, on the other hand, is responsible for taking care that the laws are faithfully executed and ensuring the proper functioning of the government. Federal courts rely on the executive branch for facility management and security. Federal judges, as officers of the courts, need resources to fulfill their constitutional obligations.
8. Courts definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions. But the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts does exactly that. The Administrative Office is controlled by the Judicial Conference, headed by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts. The Administrative Office is run by an officer appointed by—and subject to removal by—Chief Justice Roberts. 28 U.S.C. § 601.
9. Congress cannot constitutionally delegate to an officer improperly appointed pursuant to Article II powers exceeding those that are informative and investigative in nature. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 137–39 (1976).
10. The Judicial Conference’s duties are executive functions and must be supervised by executive officers who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers. United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1, 6 (2021) (Officers who engage in executive functions and are not nominated by the President “must be directed and supervised by an officer who has been.”).
11. Thus, the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office exercise executive functions and are accordingly subject to FOIA. Accordingly, their refusal to comply with AFL’s FOIA request is unlawful.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Additionally, it may grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq.
13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
PARTIES
14. Plaintiff AFL is a nonprofit organization working to promote the rule of law in the United States, prevent executive overreach, and ensure due process and equal protection for all Americans. AFL’s mission includes promoting government transparency and accountability by gathering official information, analyzing it, and disseminating it through reports, press releases, and/or other media.
15. Defendant, John G. Roberts, Jr., in his official capacity as Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States, is the head of an “agency” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
16. The Judicial Conference of the United States is located at 1 First Street NE, Washington, D.C. 20543.
17. The Judicial Conference is a policymaking body that oversees the Administrative Office and appoints and removes its directors.
18. Defendant, Robert J. Conrad, in his official capacity as Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, is the head of an “agency” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
19. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts’ office is located at 1 Columbus Circle NE, Washington, D.C. 20002.
20. The Administrative Office has its own self-contained, organizational structure, composed of over 1,000 employees and numerous committees with distinct functions.
FACTS
21. Recently, the media and liberal lawmakers have sought to undermine the political independence of Article III Courts.
22. Upon information and belief, Senator Whitehouse and Representative Johnson communicated with staff from the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office related to their allegations against Justices Thomas and Alito.
23. On July 30, 2024, AFL submitted FOIA requests to the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office seeking records of communications between the agencies and Senator Whitehouse, Representative Johnson, or any member of their staff. Exhibit 1.
24. On September 6, 2024, Ethan Torrey, Legal Counsel to the Supreme Court of the United States, replied to AFL on behalf of the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office. The response stated the agencies’ belief that both the Conference and the Administrative Office are exempt from the FOIA. Exhibit 2.
25. AFL believes that this decision is a legal error and that the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are subject to FOIA.
The Judicial Conference Is an Executive Agency Subject to FOIA
26. The FOIA incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) definition of “agency,” which means “each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include . . . the courts of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1), 552(f)(1). Specifically included within its definition are “independent establishment[s],” §§ 104, 105, and “any independent regulatory agency[s].” § 552(f)(1).
27. The Judicial Conference is subject to the APA and the FOIA because it is: (1) an independent establishment, and (2) an independent executive agency. Unlike Article III institutions, which are intended to adjudicate, an executive agency holds inherent regulatory powers from which it formulates rules relating to its organization, procedures, or practice requirements. Accord. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1).
28. The Judicial Conference is not a “court of the United States,” nor has it been ordained one by Congress. See 28 U.S.C. § 451.
29. The Conference’s ministerial duty to respond to congressional oversight exemplifies its status as an administrative body rather than a court of law. Congress has asserted that it “created the Judicial Conference by statute, funds the Judicial Conference through appropriations, and enacted the ethics laws the Judicial Conference administers, and so has an obvious interest in overseeing these matters.” Letter from Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights & Henry C. Johnson, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, to Robert Conrad, Director, Administrative Office (June 17, 2024).
30. The Judicial Conference’s organic statute prescribes the agency a variety of regulatory and administrative roles. 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Judicial Conference’s authority to promulgate and amend regulations makes it an independent regulatory agency, subjecting it to the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
31. The Judicial Conference has duties that are independent from the judiciary’s role in resolving cases or controversies, thus qualifying it as an independent establishment, and as such, an agency.
32. The Judicial Conference has the power to “prescribe and modify rules for the exercise of the authority provided in [28 U.S.C. §§ 351 et seq.],” which are required to be carried in effect by “[a]ll judicial officers and employees of the United States.” § 331.
33. The Judicial Conference is required to provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment when proposing rules to be prescribed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 358(c), 2073. Moreover, proposed rules are required to be published in the Federal Register— the official journal that documents rules made by agencies. Procedures for the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and Its Advisory Rules Committees, as codified in Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 1, § 440.20.40.
34. Notably, the Federal Register Act and the APA—acts requiring agencies to provide public notice and an opportunity to participate in policymaking—establish and outline the rulemaking process by which Executive Branch agencies issue legally binding rules. See 44 U.S.C. § 1501. Neither Congress nor courts publish their constitutional pronouncements in the Federal Register.
35. Further, the Judicial Conference’s organic statute authorizes the Conference to create standing committees, whose members are appointed by the Chief Justice, and are authorized to “hold hearings, take sworn testimony, issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, and make necessary and appropriate orders in the exercise of its authority.” Compare 28 U.S.C. § 331 (2021), with Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, 907 (The original enactment of Title 28 of the United States Code did not provide the Judicial Conference with enumerated subpoena authorities. It was not until later statutory amendments that Congress expanded the agency’s executive powers to include issuing and enforcing subpoenas.).
36. The committees’ powers preclude the members from being mere employees; they must be officers. Accordingly, if the Chief Justice does indeed have this power to appoint officers, then he must be acting as an agency head, subjecting the Judicial Conference to the FOIA.
37. The Presiding Officer of the Conference is required to submit to Congress reports of proceedings and recommendations for legislation. 28 U.S.C. § 331. Congress has the authority to direct agencies and administrative officers or employees to report to the legislature, but judges are independent of any Congressional control save for impeachment. Directing the Chief Justice to take such action indicates the Judicial Conference acts as a federal agency.
38. The Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference is a principal officer and is required to be presidentially appointed. The power to further appoint other executive officers of its subsidiary agency, the Administrative Office, reaffirms this fact. 28 U.S.C. § 601.
39. The Administrative Office’s Director, to the extent he engages in executive powers with no superior other than the President, is a principal officer.
The Administrative Office Is an Executive Agency Subject to FOIA
40. As a subsidiary of the Judicial Conference, the Administrative Office is an independent establishment, making it an “agency.” Its substantial performance of executive functions subjects it to the FOIA’s requirements.
41. The Administrative Office is not a court. It has no judicial power, and its officers and employees are not acting as judges when acting pursuant to their Administrative Office roles. See 28 U.S.C. § 607 (expressly prohibiting all officers and employees of the Administrative Office from engaging directly or indirectly in the practice of law in any court of the United States). Further, unlike courts of the United States that require judges to be removed by impeachment, the Director is appointed and removed by the Chief Justice. Id. § 601.
42. The Administrative Office has been responsive to congressional oversight. Letter from Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights & Henry C. Johnson, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, to Robert Conrad, Director, Administrative Office (June 17, 2024); U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2024, report to accompany S. 2309, 118th Cong., 1st sess., July 13, 2023, S. Rep. 118- 61, at 46. It is hornbook administrative law that only executive branch entities, not the courts, are subject to legislative oversight. Russell Wheeler, Justice Thomas, Gift Reporting Rules, and What a Supreme Court Code of Conduct Would and Wouldn’t Accomplish, Brookings (May 1, 2023), https://perma.cc/C7HQ-JHA5. To hold that the Administrative Office is a court is tantamount to concluding that Congress has the power to superintend judges through its oversight power.
43. 28 U.S.C. § 601 plainly states that the Director of the Administrative Office is an officer of an executive agency. (“The Director and Deputy Director shall be deemed to be officers for purposes of title 5, United States Code.”); see 5 U.S.C. § 2104 (defining “officer” as an individual who is: (1) required by law to be appointed by the President, a court, the head of an executive agency, or the Secretary of a military department; (2) “engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law or an Executive act;” and (3) “subject to the supervision” of one of the previously listed authorities “or the Judicial Conference of the United States, while engaged in the performance of the duties of his office.”). Thus, unlike judges who do not require executive supervision, the Director is required to be supervised while performing executive functions as the head of an executive agency.
44. The Administrative Office is an independent agency within the executive because it engages in executive functions.
45. The Director of the Administrative Office exercises core executive functions with vast discretion and autonomy.
46. The Director issues regulations implementing the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019. 28 U.S.C. § 604(i)(5)(A) (“The regulations issued . . . shall be the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management.”). That Act requires the Office of Personnel Management, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Defense—all executive agencies—to issue the same regulations.
47. The Director has complete discretion in fixing the compensation of, and appointing, inferior officers. 28 U.S.C. §§ 602, 604(a)(5), (16)(A).
48. Further, “[a]ll functions of other officers and employees of the Administrative Office and all functions of organizational units of the Administrative Office are vested in the Director,” and even more, “[t]he Director may delegate any of the Director’s functions, powers, duties, and authority . . . to such officers and employees” as he may choose. Id. § 602(d).
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552
49. AFL repeats and reincorporates the preceding paragraphs.
50. AFL properly requested records within the possession, custody, and control of the Defendants.
51. The Defendants have failed to produce the requested records, and statements have been made on their behalf that they will not do so.
52. Accordingly, AFL has exhausted its administrative remedies. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(c)(i).
53. The Defendant has violated the FOIA by failing, within the prescribed time limit, to (i) reasonably search for records responsive to AFL’s FOIA requests; (ii) provide a lawful reason for the withholding of any responsive records; and (iii) segregate exempt information in otherwise non-exempt responsive records.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
AFL respectfully requests this Court:
i. Declare that the records sought by these requests, as described in the foregoing, must be disclosed under 5 U.S.C. § 552;
ii. Declare that the Defendants are subject to the FOIA as independent agencies within the executive branch;
iii. Order the Defendants to conduct searches immediately for all records responsive to AFL’s FOIA requests and demonstrate that they employed search methods reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of responsive records;
iv. Order the Defendants to produce by a date certain all non-exempt records responsive to AFL’s FOIA requests;
v. Award AFL attorney’s fees and costs under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and vi. Grant AFL such other and further relief as this court deems proper.
April 22, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
__________________
/s/ William Scolinos
WILLIAM SCOLINOS (DC Bar No. 90023488)
DANIEL EPSTEIN (DC Bar No. 1009132)
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION
611 Pennsylvania Avenue SE #231
Washington, DC 20003
(301) 965-0179
[email protected]
Counsel for America First Legal Foundation
****************************
Group Founded by Trump Ally Stephen Miller Sues John Roberts in Bid to Control Courts
by Jacob Knutson
Democracy Docket
May 2, 2025
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-al ... ol-courts/
A legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller sued Chief Justice John Roberts in a brazen but unlikely attempt to seize control of the federal court system.
In the lawsuit filed last week, America First Legal (AFL) argued that the Judicial Conference of the U.S. and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts — two key judicial branch bodies that frame policy and handle the basic functions of the federal courts — are executive branch agencies.
“Such agencies must be overseen by the President, not the courts,” the group, represented by attorney Will Scolinos, claimed, adding that the lawsuit “preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.”
The Judicial Conference is a policymaking body for the lower federal courts established by Congress to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The Administrative office handles the nuts and bolts of the federal judiciary, like budgets and organizing court data.
AFL, which dubs itself “the long-awaited answer to the ACLU,” claimed the two judicial bodies are a part of the executive branch by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against them. FOIA strictly applies to the executive branch and independent federal regulatory agencies, but not to Congress or the federal courts.
The group named Roberts as a defendant because the Judicial Conference is headed by the chief justice. It named Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office, as a defendant.
The group argued that it’s necessary to bring the bodies under the executive branch because members of Congress, who have the constitutional authority to define most of the federal court system, asked the Supreme Court in 2023 to create or adopt an ethics code for justices.
The request was in response to allegations that Justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas accepted, and did not disclose, lavish gifts from conservative figures who eventually had business before the court.
“Recently, the media and liberal lawmakers have sought to undermine the political independence of Article III Courts,” the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit is a continuation of the Trump administration’s extensive effort to break down the separation of powers and usurp the constitutional powers of the other federal branches. In targeting the conference and administrative office, AFL is threatening both the courts’ independence and Congress’s authority to organize courts below the Supreme Court.
This is the second time AFL has attempted to FOIA the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office. Last year, the group’s FOIA suit against the bodies quickly failed after the Supreme Court’s legal counsel said the information act did not apply to judicial branch entities.
Miller left AFL in January to rejoin the White House but has retained close ties to the group, which has not named a new president since his departure.
AFL recently promoted reporting from Axios indicating that the group is “a key part of Miller’s larger mission to make diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs illegal across the country” and has “become a private enforcement arm of the White House’s assault on DEI.”
Correction: This story originally reported that America First Legal is led by Stephen Miller. In fact, Miller founded the group but left earlier this year to rejoin the White House. We regret the error.
********************
Trump adviser’s group SUES THE SUPREME COURT as feud erupts
Brian Tyler Cohen
May 4, 2025
Transcript
this is Democracy Watch mark I'm going
to put a a headline on the screen that I
had to read five separate times and then
ask you offline if it was actually real
this is the headline from Democracy
Docket group founded by Trump ally
Steven Miller sues John Roberts in a bid
to control the courts john Roberts the
chief justice of the United States is
being sued by a group that is uh was
founded by by Donald Trump's own adviser
Steven Miller what in the world is
happening here yeah so I got to give
people a little bit of a peek behind the
curtain because it is true literally
Brian was like "Okay I saw this on
democracy but this isn't real." And I
literally had to show him the lawsuit to
convince him that that yes this group
Brian is suing the chief justice of the
United States claiming that the judicial
conference okay this is the entity that
oversees the budget uh and the operation
of the US uh court system that it is
actually in in this group's uh
estimation it is actually not part of
the courts it is wait for it part of the
executive branch and should fall under
Donald Trump's authority so what what is
what was their contention within within
the lawsuit what is what is the crux of
what they're trying to do of what Steven
Miller's group is trying to do so I have
to say the lawsuit you know is is is odd
it starts as a as laying out a series of
grievances and the first grievance it
lays out is that it believes that um
Senator uh Sheldon White House and
Representative Hank Johnson who's a
Democrat from Georgia um are being too
mean uh to Supreme Court justices
particularly Justice Thomas Alo and
Kavanaaugh uh and that as a result um
that the goal of these Democrats in
Congress is to quote kill the judicial
independence of these Supreme Court
justices so if not for Sheldon White
House and and the other Democrats
uh bullying bullying the Clarence
Thomas' of the world and uh and Samuel
Letos of the world if if not for if not
for them they would be able to really
exercise their judicial independence
that's the problem here is that they're
not is that that they're being bullied
by the overbearing Democrats correct
that's right the problem in the federal
judiciary according to this the first
paragraph of this lawsuit is that uh it
is not the White House or the
Republicans who are threatening judicial
independence it is actually the
Democrats who are threatening judicial
independence i I what I would give for
the Democrats to be 10% as aggressive
and overbearing as Republicans frame
them as being i would love I mean to
live in a world where we had the
Democrats who were just so strong and
aggressive and hostile that they could
actually impact what this Supreme Court
is doing look so that's how the lawsuit
begins and you know by the way kudos to
Senator White House and Congressman uh
Johnson that you've made it into this uh
into this screed of theirs but what they
really are saying is that the part of
the judicial the part of the judiciary
the judicial conference the
administrative body that oversees the
courts that because it is an
administrative entity it administers it
administers the court system uh and by
the way uh the chief justice is the head
of that which is why John Roberts is
named um that that because it's an
administrative body it needs to sit in
the executive branch and be controlled
by Donald Trump so like at the end of
this rainbow they say would be a the
court systems administration the
administration of the court system would
not be under the chief justice but would
be subject to the whims of Donald Trump
i mean don't don't they recognize the
obvious fundamental problem here which
is that we have three co-equal branches
of government and they are literally
trying to say that one of those branches
of government belongs to sits beneath uh
the executive branch uh yes that is what
they want i mean I understand I
understand why they're trying to do this
is because they want to assert control
they've already they already own the
legislative branch because Donald Trump
could you know could could ask uh any of
these congressional Republicans to
sacrifice their firstborn and they would
say "How about our second born too but
really the the biggest bull work against
the executive branch's overreach um has
been the court system thus far." And so
this is basically saying "You think that
you are a co-equal branch of government
but in fact we own you." That's right we
admin we should be in charge of
administering your budget and and and
how you operate and all of that that
that should be within the purview of the
the White House and the executive branch
and of course since they believe in
what's referred to as the unitary
executive theory it literally would mean
at the whim of of Donald Trump um and
and all of this because as I said they
believe that Clarence Thomas uh uh
Justice Kavanaaugh uh and Justice Alo uh
have all been bullied uh and that this
is their this is therefore essential
right they've been bullied and that's
why they're not allowed to exercise any
uh any judicial independence and
judicial independence right if if if
only uh the Democrats hadn't bullied
them so much they would be they would be
more more neutral but I guess uh alas
that's where that's where it stands
right now mark I would ask what does
this look like in practice does this
mean if they're successful with this
whole bid which I don't presume is going
to be successful we can talk about that
that in a moment but let's say we have
judges for example who dain to uh to to
issue rulings in accordance with the law
or the constitution that this White
House isn't happy with does that mean
that they could basically strip the the
budget um of away from certain judges
whose rulings they don't like or student
or certain um uh circuit court
jurisdictions whose rulings they don't
like um I think what they would say is
yes i think that what they they don't
flesh it out in exactly those terms but
I think what they would say is that the
administration of the courts um you know
how the budgets how money gets
appropriated uh you know to different
courouses or different judicial
districts perhaps the ethics rules you
know one of the reasons why they single
out Senator White House and Congressman
Johnson is because they have been
critics of these three Supreme Court
justices about ethics and of course the
judicial conference has an ethics regime
there's a question about whether or not
it has been appropriately vigorously
applied to the Supreme Court uh but it
is definitely applied to lower courts so
it's literally you know everything about
how the courts operate how judges health
care insurance you know everything about
the the administration of the courts
other than um uh other than how the
judges themselves hear cases and rule
and so yes they could target judges who
they didn't like judicial districts that
they wanted to favor or disfavor um and
uh and all of this is summed up in one
particular paragraph where they say the
judicial conference's duties are
executive functions and must be
supervised by executive officers who are
appointed and accountable to other
executive officers namely Donald J trump
right you know the the the interesting
part of this is that we don't have to
guess what what that looks like with the
Trump administration because all we have
to do is look at how they're comporting
themselves as it relates to these
universities uh I mean they just
stripped away Harvard's tax or they
tried to strip away Harvard's tax exempt
status and so we've already seen the
ways in which they will use uh finances
for example to be able to to wield it as
a cudel against their political
opponents and so if they're doing it
with universities if they're doing it
with law firms if they're doing it with
media outlets if they're doing it with
these tech billionaires clearly they're
going to they're going to use the same
playbook when they go after uh when they
go after these court systems and these
judges depending on whether they find
their rulings favorable or disfavorable
yeah and this is you know just the next
step in the authoritarian playbook that
we see from the Trump administration and
from from its allies now I do want to
say and you said we'd get to this this
lawsuit's not going to prevail i mean
like I mean this is in some sense I I
have to hope for the benefit of the
lawyers who put their names on the
bottom of this uh this pleading uh that
this is aimed at making a point uh
because uh I don't believe that the
federal uh I don't believe that the
federal district court uh in the
District of Columbia is going to rule
against uh the Supreme Court Chief
Justice uh in his ability to administer
the judicial branch and I don't suspect
that they think that the that the DC
circuit or the Supreme Court are going
to have that so I think that this is
them you know trying to both make a
point but also you know more seriously
try to put some pressure you know try to
try to put some leverage here against
the courts and maybe get a couple of
balls called strikes uh that would have
otherwise been called balls and that's
exactly where I wanted to dig in because
clearly they know that this isn't going
to pan out as they would hope it would
pan out in in this you know ideal
version of of uh of this um effort but
really can you speak on the the fact
that they are just trying to ultimately
intimidate these courts into doing what
they want them to do by showing that
they're not afraid to take as aggressive
a posture as they need to to try and get
their way do you think that's going to
have any impact on Look I I don't
presume it'll have some impact on the
Supreme Court who recognizes its own
autonomy at least most of the Supreme
Court justices but but what about the
impact that this could have on district
courts or appeals courts yeah i mean
look that's I think you've asked the
right question because you know I think
what they're basically saying is boy it
would be awfully terrible if something
happened to your your court your your
court system there um and because you
know even if they don't win this lawsuit
as I said I don't think they're going to
win this lawsuit the president can still
veto legislation he can still propose he
as you say he basically controls
Congress he can essentially dictate to
Congress what they do by law you know
what ethics rules do they put what
ethics rules do they repeal what
budgetary changes do they make to uh to
uh different districts do they create
additional circuits do they split
divisions do they put rules about which
judges from where can hear what kind of
cases right so I think that this is
meant to probably illustrate that the
Trump world the broader uh MAGA uh uh
universe is unhappy with how the courts
are being administered and again it may
not affect the US Supreme Court uh but
at the lower levels because they're
looking to trying to gain every
advantage they can because they are
frankly losing so many cases the
administration is losing so many cases
right now they're trying to affect that
will it work boy I hope it doesn't work
yeah uh I hope that the judges stand up
to it and we've seen a lot of evidence
of of some brave judges standing up to
the Trump administration but I think
that that's what they're what the Trump
what the MAGA world is hoping let's
finish off with this and and and I don't
presume that you know I'm going to get
as straight an answer as I would like to
get here but in the event that Trump
does go after the the US Supreme Court
here do you think that that could have
some type of a a backfiring effect in
that by virtue of trying to to assert
their control over the Supreme Court
really the Supreme Court has the ability
to push back and we've seen a lot of
these cases bubble up to the Supreme
Court that's generally a safe space for
this administration oftentimes they want
their cases to come up to the Supreme
Court because they know that that's
where they have the best chance of
succeeding but do you think that by
taking as aggressive a posture as they
are by really jumping the shark as it
relates to to their authority um and
trying to to undermine the Supreme
Court's authority do you think that the
Supreme Court could push back and maybe
not offer uh you know as as favorable an
environment for this administration as
they might hope yeah look I I've said
for some time now that I thought that
the administration was making a huge
mistake in how it's approaching the
courts because it it has always struck
me that if the administration played
nice with the courts you know they they
respected their rulings they were
respectful in their interaction with the
judges they appealed the cases that they
lost but they did it in ways that showed
deference to the judiciary they didn't
threaten judges with impeachment they
didn't Their allies were not filing
lawsuits like this that at the end of
the day you know it's a 6-3 conservative
court right you know they get what they
want most of the time yeah and it's a 63
conservative court that by the way has a
pretty you know when you count when you
count heads of the justice there has a
pretty pro strong uh executive strong
pro presidency bent to it yeah so it's
always struck to me that it struck me
that if they had just approached things
that way they'd actually do pretty well
and that what they're actually doing is
playing into the hands of people like me
and like you who who don't want them to
succeed by being so antagonistic to the
justice i mean this isn't going to win
them a single vote in a single case on
the US Supreme Court like you know
Justice Thomas and Justice uh Kavanaaugh
and and and and um uh and Justice Alo I
am sure are shagrined not pleased by
this like they don't need some group
filing a lawsuit against the chief
justice on their behalf they are more
than capable of maintaining their own
judicial independence from whatever
criticism they get from a senator or
from the entire Senate or from Congress
and so I think that this is actually
going to backfire i suspect it already
has started to backfire that one of the
reasons why you've seen the Supreme
Court in you know in the um the CA the
Goolog case as I refer to it where you
know rule as strongly as it did is
because that was a case that in which
the administration was flouting the
courts and so you know I hate to say I
hope the administration continues down
this path because it's not good for it's
not good for democracy it's not good for
you know relations within the branches
but in some ways i think stuff like this
stunts like this are only going to
redound to their detriment and to the
benefit of those of us who want the
judiciary to be stiffer in its spine
versus the Trump administration well
look I I think that this is an
especially uh interesting and uh and and
important story to cover uh I I haven't
seen it anywhere but Democracy Docket
and so I would highly recommend for
everybody watching right now not just to
support the invaluable work of Mark and
his team um but also to to really be
able to to get the full breadth of their
fearless independent journalism so I'll
put the link to Democracy Docket right
here on the screen and also in the post
description of this video please make
sure to sign up i'm Brian Teller Cohen
i'm Mark Elias this is Democracy Watch
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37503
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Mon May 05, 2025 5:27 pm
Part 1 of 2
Read the full transcript: President Donald Trump interviewed by 'Meet the Press' moderator Kristen Welker
May 4, 2025, 10:00 AM MDT
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... rcna203514
Transcript
KRISTEN WELKER:
President Trump, welcome back to Meet the Press.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Thank you very much.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you so much for being here to mark your first 100 days in office. It has been an incredibly busy 100 days. You’ve signed more than 140 executive orders. You’ve been focused on the border, the economy, foreign policy. What is your biggest goal in the next 100 days?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I think we’re going to see a lot of results. We’ve already seen them. On the border, we have the best border in the history of our country. It was 99.999, and nobody ever thought that was possible. In fact, Biden, if you remember, said he has to get legislation. And I said, “No, you just need a new president.” And I guess I was right. We have the best border we’ve ever had. We’re doing great on illegal immigration. We are being hit hard by judges that I think they’re trying to take away the power of the presidency. I was elected in a massive landslide and a big, you know, big vote. We won the swing states. We won the popular vote. We won the district votes by tremendous numbers. We won everything. And one of the reasons — one of the primary reasons I was elected was to get people out of our country that were allowed. We have prisoners. We have murderers. We have terrorists in our country. We have people from mental institutions that are seriously insane. They all came in through Biden’s open border policy. And I was elected to get them out and to seal the border, but to get them out. And we’ll have judges, they’re activist judges. They’re saying, “Well, you know, you don’t have the right to take out murderers and — and people that you don’t even want to talk about.” These are really some really bad criminal people. And they’re here illegally. So, you know they talk about — your next question will be due process. But they talk about due process, but do you get due process when you’re here illegally?
KRISTEN WELKER:
We’re going to talk about all of that. We are going to talk about deportation. But I want to start on the economy, sir, which obviously — obviously the biggest issue for voters. We got new numbers today, better than expected job numbers.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Much better.
KRISTEN WELKER:
At the same time, the economy shrank in the first quarter. You’ve been arguing all week that this is President Biden’s economy. Is this now your economy, sir?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I think certain aspects of it are. Costs are. I was able to get down the costs. But even that, it takes a while to get them down, but we got them down good. We lost 5 to 6 billion dollars a day with Biden. Five to 6 billion. And I’ve got that down to a great number right now in a very — in a record time. You know, we’re talking about 100 days. But just think of what that is. Five billion dollars a day we’re losing on trade. And we were very tough with China, as you know. We put 145% tariff on. Nobody’s ever heard of such a thing. And we’ve essentially cut off trade relationships by putting that much of a tariff on. And that’s okay. We’ve gone cold turkey. That means that we’re not losing. You know, we lost a trillion dollars to China. A trillion dollars. That means we’re not losing a trillion dollars when we go cold turkey because we’re not doing business with them right now. And they want to make a deal. They want to make a deal very badly. We’ll see how that all turns out, but it’s got to be a fair deal. But think of it. We were losing a trillion dollars. And that was a big part of the 5 million dollars a day.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And I want to talk about China, but just staying on this idea of the economy. On the eve of your inauguration, the stock market spiked. You called it the “Trump Effect.” Are you —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It spiked because I was elected president. It didn’t spike because of anybody else. It spiked because they see what I’m going to do. They know what I’m going to do with the tariffs and everything else. And I think it’s actually working out better than we anticipated. Did you see oil prices? Did you see gasoline is now below, in many cases, in many states, below 2 dollars a gallon? $1.98, $1.99, $1.97?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, my question, sir, is you — when the stock market spiked, you said this is the “Trump effect.” When the numbers weren’t so good earlier this week, you said it’s the Biden effect. Are you only taking ownership of the good numbers and not the bad numbers?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I think he did a lot of very bad things. And despite some of the bad things, we’re overcoming them. But he was bad on the border. He was bad on the economy. We had the worst inflation in the history of our country. Look, Biden gave us the worst inflation in the history of our country. People — it didn’t matter what they made because they were losing their shirt because of costs. Now take a look at what happened. Oil is down. Gasoline is down. Groceries are down. Eggs. You were the one that asked me. You asked me about eggs. It was the first week. I didn’t even know anything about what you — we were talking about. Egg prices were so high, you couldn’t buy eggs. They didn’t have any eggs. And they said, “Easter is going to be a disaster.” Well, we had Easter at the White House, and we had thousands of eggs. And they were down 87%.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. A lot of that, of course, spike was because of bird flu. But when does it become —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I don’t know —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– the Trump economy?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– what it was. Why do you say that?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, tell me. When —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We had the same bird flu as he had.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When does it become the Trump economy?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It partially is right now. And I really mean this. I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts are the Biden economy because he’s done a terrible job. He did a terrible job on everything, from his autopen — which I’m sure he knew nothing about, some of the things he was supposedly signing — to immigration. You look at what happened with immigration, how bad it was. Think of it. We have murderers, 11,888 murderers, many of them murdered more than one person. Think of that. And they’re in our country. Now, we’ve gotten a lot of them out, and we know who many of them are. And we’re on the hunt. But why would anybody do that? Why would anybody — who could do such a thing where they’d allow hundreds of thousands, and even millions of people into our country — or criminals and murderers at the highest level. Who would do this?
KRISTEN WELKER:
But, sir, you acknowledge when you announced your tariffs, for example, the stock market dropped. It’s been volatile. It has —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– since gone up.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– it is, but now it’s —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you take responsibility —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Look at today. I take responsibility.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– for that? Yeah. Do you take responsibility when it drops?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Ultimately, I take responsibility for everything. But I’ve only just been here for a little more than three months. But the stock market, look at what’s happened in the last short period of time. Didn’t it have nine or ten days in a row, or 11 days, where it’s gone up? And the tariffs have just started kicking in. And we’re doing really well. Psychologically, I mean, the fake news was giving me such press on the tariffs. The tariffs are going to make us rich. We’re going to be a very rich country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So let’s talk about the tariffs. And I want to ask you about something you said this week. Got a lot of attention. You were at your Cabinet meeting. You said, quote — I’m going to quote what you said — “Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls. And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.” Are you saying that your tariffs will cause some prices to go up?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. I think tariffs are going to be great for us because it’s going to make us rich.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you said some dolls are going to cost more.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Isn’t that an acknowledgment —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t think —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– that some prices —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– children —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– will go up?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t think that a beautiful baby girl needs — that’s 11 years old — needs to have 30 dolls. I think they can have three dolls or four dolls because what we were doing with China was just unbelievable. We had a trade deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars with China.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When you say, “They could have three dolls instead of 30 dolls,” are you saying you’re —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m saying they don’t need to have 30 dolls —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– that Americans could see empty store shelves?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. No, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying they don’t need to have 30 dolls. They can have three. They don’t need to have 250 pencils. They can have five.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you’re basically saying there could be some supply shortages —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m basically saying —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– because of the tariffs.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– we don’t have to waste money on a trade deficit with China for things we don’t need, for junk that we don’t need.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, prices are already going up on some popular items —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– from tires to strollers —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Whoa, whoa. This is such a dishonest interview already.
KRISTEN WELKER:
No, no.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Prices are down on groceries. Prices are down for oil. Prices are down for all energy. Prices are down at tremendous numbers for gasoline. And let me tell you, when you have — the big thing, what he did, he spent like a stupid person, which he was. But he spent like a very stupid person. And that was bad for inflation. But what really killed us with inflation was the price of energy. It went up to $3.90, even $4. And in California, $5 and $6. Right? Okay. I have it down to $1.98 in many states right now. When you go that much lower on energy — which is ahead of my prediction because I really thought I could get it down into the $2.50s — we have it down at $1.98 in numerous places. But when you say costs are going up, even mortgage rates are going down. You know, we have mortgage rates —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But let me give you some examples. These are — I mean, these are actual examples. So you’re saying the prices that are going down. Some prices are going up. Tires, strollers, some clothing in the wake of your tariffs —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Excuse me. That’s peanuts compared to —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– energy. Energy is 60% of the cost.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But, sir, you campaigned —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Energy is a big —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– on a promise to bring prices down on day one.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I don’t know, when you say strollers are going up, what kind of a thing? I’m saying that gasoline is going down. Gasoline is thousands of times more important than a stroller or some place?
KRISTEN WELKER:
But what do you say to Americans who say they voted for you because they want and they need relief right now?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And they’re getting it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Right now? What about those —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Even mortgage rates. It was just announced —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– different items I just mentioned?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– mortgage rates are going down, despite the fact that we have a stubborn Fed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you said dolls — even dolls could cost a couple bucks more.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Maybe they might. But you don’t need to have, as I said, 35 dolls. You can have two, three, four, and save a lot of money. We don’t need to feed the beast.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I guess — you’re talking about this transition cost. How long should people expect that transition to last, Mr. President?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I can’t tell you that. I can tell you that we’re making a lot of money. We’re doing great. Again, we were losing more than $5 billion a day. $5 billion a day. You don’t talk about that. And right now, we’re going to be at a point very soon where we’re making money every day. Look —
KRISTEN WELKER:
How soon?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– we were losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China. Now we’re essentially not doing business with China. Therefore, we’re saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Very simple.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You take me to my next question, which is about China. They’ve been making a number of public statements.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Very positive statements in the last 24 hours.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and most recently, they said before talks could happen, the U.S. would need to remove unilateral tariffs. Would you consider dropping the tariffs to get China to the negotiating table?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. They — first of all, you’re giving me a statement that was said a week ago. You’re not giving the statement that was said today.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I have May 2nd, Chinese Commerce Ministry.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Do you know what they say today?
KRISTEN WELKER:
“If the U.S. wants to negotiate, it should show sincerity –”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
“We’re looking forward — ”
KRISTEN WELKER:
“ — by preparing to take actions in correcting its mistakes and canceling the unilateral tariffs.”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, no, no. They made — first of all, they made numerous statements.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes. They’ve made numerous statements.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know how many people speak for China?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’s like, you have 15 different —
KRISTEN WELKER:
They’ve made numerous statements —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I can give you a statement for any occasion.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes. Yes, yes.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But they said today they want to talk. Look, China — and I don’t like this. I’m not happy about this. China’s getting killed right now. They’re getting absolutely destroyed. Their factories are closing. Their unemployment is going through the roof. I’m not looking to do that to China. Now, at the same time, I’m not looking to have China make hundreds of billions of dollars and build more ships and more army tanks and more airplanes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you’re not prepared — just to be very clear, you’re not dropping the tariffs against China to get them to the negotiating table?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Why would I —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Those tariffs are staying on?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Why would I do that?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Would you lower them?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
At some point, I’m going to lower them because otherwise, you could never do business with them. And they want to do business very much. Look, their economy is really doing badly. Their economy is collapsing.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So small businesses say they are being hurt by the Chinese tariffs. And some could be forced to shut down.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And many businesses are being helped.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are you considering —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Look at the automobile —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– tariff relief for small businesses?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Why do you always mention that. You know, you pick up a couple of little businesses. What about the car business? They’re going to make a fortune because of the tariffs. Do you know that the union, the head of the union, who was no fan of mine, Fain, Shawn Fain I guess his name is, right? He didn’t endorse me. The Teamsters did. A lot of people did. A lot of unions did. But he didn’t. He couldn’t stand me. Now he’s saying, “Wow. What Trump’s done for the automobile, I can’t believe it.” I assume he’s going to probably now say — the next thing he can say is, “I endorse this guy. He’s the greatest I’ve ever seen.” He can’t believe it’s happened. He said, “We’ve been waiting 40 years for somebody to do what Trump is doing.” So why don’t you mention the big car industry instead of mentioning somebody that’s doing strollers?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, I’m just asking you about small businesses. Are there any discussions about giving any relief to small businesses?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
They’re not going to need it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Are these —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
They’re going to make so much money —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are these tariffs —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– if you build your product here. Remember, there are no tariffs if you build your product here. It’s very easy. It’s very simple.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are these tariffs permanent, Mr. President?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Depends on what you’re talking about. One of the things that is going to bring, and has brought — so I think we probably have close to $9 trillion of investments coming into this country. If you look at other presidents, there’s never been anything like that. This is over a period of two months. You’ve got to give me a little break on the one month because we’re three months. But, you know, let’s say we had to get started. We had a lot of fake news at the beginning, so we had to beat that down. But so let’s say in two months. So in just a short period of time — a matter of a couple of months — we have the largest number ever in history invested in the United States and committed. We have between, guaranteed, spoken for and people that are going to make a decision and announce it pretty soon, close to $9 trillion. We’ve never had anything close. Now, that’s Apple building $500 billion worth of plants. They always built their plants in China. Now they’re building their plants over here. That’s the biggest computer company, the biggest chip company in the world. You know, the chip company from Taiwan, which is the biggest in the world, is committed for $500 billion. Another one’s committed for $300 billion. We have companies, nobody’s ever seen anything like it. Let me tell you the other thing, very importantly — automobile companies. Plant, after plant, after plant: Toyota, Honda, Ford, General Motors, Stellantis, I mean, nobody’s ever seen anything like it. And I don’t like this, but it happens to be. They’re stopping work in Mexico, and they’re stopping work in Canada, and they’re all moving here.
KRISTEN WELKER:
This is important though. You’re not taking the possibility that these tariffs could be permanent off the table — some of them?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, I wouldn’t do that because if somebody thought they were going to come off the table, why would they build in the United States?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You understand that, right?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. No, I mean, that’s why I’m asking because there’s a lot of, I think, uncertainty for CEOs, for business owners. They want to know are these tariffs —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
See, I don’t think there is uncertainty.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– permanent?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think there’s only uncertainty in the fake news. I don’t think there’s uncertainty. I mean, I’ve been very rigid, very strong on it. But I will say I have — I’m flexible. Like, with respect to parts made outside of the country, I gave the automobile companies a little extra time. You know, you’re talking about 15%, and then 10% of the parts made — put in a car. I gave them a little extra time without penalizing them. And I did that only to help, you know, companies. We’re looking to help companies. We want them to thrive and to hire a lot of people and that’s what’s happening.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about some of what Wall Street has said. Some people on Wall Street have expressed concerns that the possibility of a recession is increasing. And I want to know what you think about that. Are you comfortable with the country potentially dipping into a recession for a period of time if you are able to achieve your long term goals?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, you know, you say some people on Wall Street say, well, I’ll tell you something else. Some people on Wall Street say that we’re going to have the greatest economy in history. Why don’t you talk about them? Because some people on Wall Street say this is the greatest —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, that’s what I’m getting at —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– thing that ever happened.
KRISTEN WELKER:
That’s what I’m getting at though. It’s —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
There are many people —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– the same question.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah. There are many people on Wall Street that say, “This is going to be the greatest windfall ever happen.”
KRISTEN WELKER:
And that’s my question —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Remember this —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– the long term.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is it okay in the short term to have a recession?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Remember this. Look, yeah. Everything’s okay. What we are — I said, this is a transition period. I think we’re going to do fantastically. One of your colleagues on another fake news station, ABC, said, “Do you guarantee 100% that a certain person is going to do a fantastic job as, let’s say, Secretary of Defense?” Okay? Because that was the question. I said, “What kind of a question is that? Do I guarantee 100%? Nobody guarantees 100%.” But I will say this. I think we’re going to have an economy the likes of which we’ve never had before. You know, my four years were phenomenal, as you know. The stock market. In fact, even though we had to go through the Covid thing, that horrible situation with Covid, we did numbers — and when I gave it over, when I handed it over, the election was rigged, and I handed it — and because of that, we have a lot of problems, by the way. But when I handed it over, what happened? The market was higher than it was previous to just previous to Covid coming in. Nobody could believe it. The stock market, I’m talking about.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I don’t want to look back, but you did take your case to court about that.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, you got to look back.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You took your case to court about your allegations against the election. Let me ask you, sir —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Ah, no no no. There’s no question about it. The election was rigged. The facts are in. And it’s still being litigated. Let’s go.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You did take your case to court more than 60 times —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, no, sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– and didn’t win those cases.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure. And I won a lot of court cases —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just to button that up though, sir, just to button that up —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
What are you talking about? The election of —
KRISTEN WELKER:
How worried are you —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Are we talking about the election of 2020?
KRISTEN WELKER:
No, let’s talk about the here and now. Let’s talk about here and now —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
The election of 2020?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s not talk about — let’s talk about here and now. Are you worried about a recession?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. No. I think we’re going to have the greatest economic —
KRISTEN WELKER:
I mean, are you worried it could happen? Do you think it could happen?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Anything can happen. But I think we’re going to have the greatest economy in the history of our country. I think we’re going to have the greatest economic boom in history.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about this call to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos this week in response to a report that Amazon was going to display tariff costs next to product prices. Are you going to punish CEOs who increase their prices because of tariffs?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think what’s — what is a great misnomer is the word “tariff” in many cases, it’s not — to me, I don’t view it as a tax. I view it as an incentive for people to come into the United States and build plants, factories, offices, a lot of things. I think it’s an incentive. But the thing that’s not known is, if you look back and see, oftentimes, like China or Vietnam or other countries, not just China, because China’s an abuser, but there are other abusers. Many of them are friends, the so-called — I say friend and foe, and friend is oftentimes worse than foe. But what people don’t understand is, and this is a lot, the country eats the tariff. The company eats the tariff. And it’s not passed along at all.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, some CEOs —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t view it as a tax.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– are saying they’re going to have to pass it on. So how do you deal with those CEOs?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It may. It may. But the company —
KRISTEN WELKER:
How do you deal with those CEOs?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
China is eating the tariffs right now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What do you say to those CEOs who are saying, “We might have to pass this on to the consumer?”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, they say that because maybe it’s to their advantage to say it. Maybe they don’t —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Will you punish them?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, because you know what? I want them to build plants in the United States. That way, they don’t have any tariffs. See, tariffs will — and not only will, look at what’s happened. In two months, we’re close to $9 trillion of investment. We’ve never been anywhere near that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What did you say to Jeff Bezos?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
He’s just a very nice guy. We have a relationship. I asked him about it. He said, “Well, I don’t want to do that,” and he took it off immediately.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So he changed course. And will you take that same tactic with other CEOs if you feel like —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure. I’ll always call people if I disagree with them.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You’ll —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
If I think that somebody’s doing something that’s incorrect, wrong, or maybe hurtful to the country, I’ll call. Absolu — wouldn’t you want me to call? Biden wouldn’t call because he didn’t know what was happening, but I do.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Takes me to my next question. Today’s strong jobs report likely means — not clear, but likely means — the Fed is less likely to lower interest rates soon.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, he should lower them. And at some point, he will. He’d rather not because he’s not a fan of mine. You know, he just doesn’t like me because I think he’s a total stiff. And, you know, it’s just one of those things. He should lower them. And I wish the people that are on that board would get him to lower because we are at a perfect time. It’s already late. But he should lower interest rates.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you rule out removing Fed Chair Jerome Powell?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m not — you know, I get to change him very quickly anyway. You know, it’s in a very short period of time.
KRISTEN WELKER:
In 2026. You’re not going to remove — you don’t have plans to remove him before 2026 when his time’s up?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, no, no. That was a total — why would I do that? I get to replace the person in another short period of time.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. This week, you reshuffled your national security team.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You moved National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to U.N. ambassador. Just to remind our viewers, Waltz, of course, started that unsecure text chain where sensitive information was shared. Mr. President, was that move a punishment?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. I just think he’ll do a nice job in the new position. Marco’s doing an outstanding job. Now, Marco won’t keep — Marco’s very busy doing other things, so he’s not going to keep it long term. We’re going to put somebody else in. But I think Mike was a — as you know, he’s a fine guy. And I think he’ll do a very good job — knows the countries, knows leadership. And I think he’ll do a very good at the United Nations. And in the meantime, Marco’s really doing something special. And it’s going to work out very well.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We’re hearing some potential names. Stephen Miller’s name, one of your long-time, most loyal aides. His name has been talked about as a potential national security advisor. Is he someone you’re looking at?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I’d love to have Stephen there, but that would be a downgrade. Stephen is very — Stephen is much higher on the totem pole than that, in my opinion.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can you tell us who the front-runner is right now?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I have a lot of people that want it. I will tell you, I have everybody calling. Everybody wants to be a part of this administration. So at some point we’ll — you know, probably do that. You know, there’s a theory. Henry Kissinger did both. There’s a theory that you don’t need two people. But I think I have some really great people that could do a good job.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So Secretary Rubio could continue to have both jobs indefinitely?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
He could, yeah. He could. But I think he even would like to probably see — because it is a little bit different. But in the meantime, he’ll handle it. And I think Mike, if that goes forward, you know, he still has to get approved. But I think Mike will do a very good job at the United Nations.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth obviously also on that unsecure text chain. He was sharing sensitive information. Are you looking for a new secretary of defense, Mr. President?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. Not even a little bit. No. Pete’s going to be great. We’re —
KRISTEN WELKER:
His job is safe right now?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We’re doing a fantastic job against the Houthis, who like blowing ships up and watching them sink in the ocean. We’re hitting them very hard. No, he’s doing a very good job.
KRISTEN WELKER:
His job is safe right now?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Totally safe.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let’s talk about the border.. Let’s talk about deportations. Border crossings are at their lowest level ever recorded. Is the border —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Is that good?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is the border now secure?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, it’s really secure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s absolutely secure?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Isn’t that good, though? When you say that, doesn’t that just sound good? After being abused for years by an incompetent president that allowed people to pour through an open border, criminals from all over the world, murderers and insane people from mental institutions and insane asylums, isn’t it — isn’t it a beautiful thing when you say, “It’s the most secure it’s ever been in the history of our country.” Isn’t that a nice statement?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, I’m curious to know what it means. You declared a national emergency on the southern border.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
The order is still in place. Even though —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
By the way, it means exactly what you said, you know —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– you’re saying the border is secure. Yes.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Means we have the most secure border we’ve ever had.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and I guess the question becomes —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’s not complicated.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– when will you know that the emergency is over? Are you planning to lift it at some point? Is it necessary? Because obviously, the military’s involved. Will you lift that — that emergency order, sir?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, the biggest emergency is the courts aren’t allowing us to take really —
KRISTEN WELKER:
We’re going to talk about that, but talk to me first about this —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, that’s to me the emergency because —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Talk to me first about this, the emergency —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
The border now is not the emergency. The border is — it’s all part of the same thing though. The big emergency right now is that we have thousands of people that we want to take out, and we have some judges that want everybody to go to court —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Some of them you appointed, sir, including three on the Supreme Court.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
That’s all right. I mean, they change. I mean, it’s unbelievable. It’s unbelievable how that happens, but they do change.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just to button this up, though, are you planning to lift that emergency order any time soon now that the border’s secure? You say the border’s secure.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, no, no. We have an emergency. We have a massive emergency overall. It’s an overall emergency on immigration. And the — if the courts don’t allow us to take people out, if we had to have a court case every single — think of it. Every single person, we have millions of people. If you have millions of court cases, figure two weeks a court case, it would be 300 years.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So let’s talk about this, because obviously, you’ve had a back and forth with the Supreme Court. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court directed your administration to facilitate the return, you’ve talked about this in the past, of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, from a prison in El Salvador, whose deportation your administration called an “administrative error.” You said in a recent interview you could bring him back but you won’t. Are you defying the Supreme Court, sir?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. I’m relying on the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who’s very capable, doing a great job. Because I’m not involved in the legality or the illegality. I have lawyers to do that and that’s why I have a great DOJ. We have a great one. We had a very corrupt one before. Now we have a great one. And they’re not viewing the decision the way you said it. They don’t view it that way at all. They think it’s a totally different decision.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you say you have the power to bring him back, though. Your attorney general says, quote, “That’s up to El Salvador.” Just to put a fine point on this, do you have the power to bring Abrego Garcia back as the Supreme Court has ordered?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I have the power to ask for him to come back if I’m instructed by the attorney general that it’s legal to do so. But the decision as to whether or not he should come back will be the head of El Salvador. He’s a very capable man.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you know, and your attorney general has said the issue is with that word “facilitate.” Will you seek clarification from the Supreme Court? Do you need to go back to the Supreme Court?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We may do that. I was asking about that. We may do that. There are some people that say, “Bring him back, put him in trial, and you get him out right away.” Because you take — you see what happened just this morning, tapes came out, horrible tapes from his wife. You don’t get much worse than that. You don’t get, I mean, he seems certainly like a very dangerous, very bad person. But even the wife who was so afraid, she was afraid to talk, and all of a sudden tapes got released this morning that were devastating to him.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And this is the point, sir, about due process. The Constitution says every person, citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process. Why not push to have him come back, present all of that evidence in court, let a judge decide?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I’ll leave that to the lawyers, and I’ll leave that to the attorney general of the United States, because —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But do you agree —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– they’re in it. You have to understand. I’m dealing with Russia and Ukraine. I’m dealing with China —
KRISTEN WELKER:
And we’re going to talk about that.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m dealing with Iran. I’m dealing with Rwanda and the Congo who are fighting and we’re trying to get that one straightened out. And I think we have done that, did a great job. Nobody even talks about it, but I think we’re close to doing that. They’re looking like they’re going to maybe make a peace deal, which was — would be good. But I’m dealing with a lot of different things. I don’t know much about this gentleman other than I hear he’s an absolute not good person. And I have very capable legal people, John Sauer, as you know, and all top people. And I have to rely on that to interpret whatever is said by the Supreme Court. Now with that being said, I have tremendous respect for the Supreme Court. Look, three of the people are people I appointed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Right.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And I have great respect for the Supreme Court. And I would expect that the attorney general will be doing the right thing.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Your secretary of state says everyone who’s here, citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process. Do you agree, Mr. President?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, the Fifth Amendment says as much.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials. We have thousands of people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But is —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Some of the worst, most dangerous people on Earth. And I was elected to get them the hell out of here and the courts are holding me from doing it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But even given those numbers that you’re talking about, don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said is not what I heard the Supreme Court said. They have a different interpretation.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is anyone in your administration right now in contact with El Salvador about returning Abrego Garcia to the United States?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t know. You’d have to ask the attorney general that question.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. At least two Americans have been mistakenly detained and released by your administration, immigration authorities. Mr. President, should lawful residents of this country start carrying paperwork with them when they leave their homes to be able to prove that they’re —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t think that’ll be necessary, but what you’re not saying is that many people have been killed, maimed, badly hurt by illegal immigrants that came over that are from prisons and from jails and from mental institutions. And they’re hurting our people. And if we don’t get them out, we’re not going to have a country for long.
KRISTEN WELKER:
There —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We need honest media, and we need walls. We need to have borders. And, by the way, I built a lot of walls, and if we didn’t do that, we wouldn’t be able to have those — you know, we would not be able to have the kind of numbers if I wasn’t successful in building hundreds of miles of wall.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Very quickly, sir. The last time you and I spoke in December, you said that you would consider working on getting Dreamers legal status. Dreamers, of course, those who are brought here illegally as children. Where do those efforts stand —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Many, many years ago —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is that a priority for you?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it’s not a priority for the Democrats because every time we talk about it, they don’t want to talk about it because I guess they like it as a political issue. But they’re not good at political issues because they still want to have men play in women’s sports.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, Republicans do control Congress right now, Mr. President. Are you going to make —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, but the Democrats don’t —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– Dreamers a priority?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, for that, you would need to have support from Democrats, and we have no support from the Democrats.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Have you had any discussions about Dreamers?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, we’ve had discussions. We would do something. I’d love to put a beautiful immigration for everybody. But the Democrats don’t want to approve anything. All they want to do is knock out a tax bill. We’re trying to get approved right now the biggest tax cut in the history of our country, and if it doesn’t get approved, it’s a 68% tax increase, and that’s what the Democrats want. They want a 68% tax increase. It’s rather incredible.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And I do want to talk to you about your legislation, but let’s talk about DOGE very quickly. DOGE has fired and then rehired thousands of federal workers, including FAA employees in charge of aviation safety, specialists working on nuclear weapon safety. What do you say to those who believe Elon Musk’s chain saw approach has jeopardized the safety and security of Americans?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, he found $160 billion worth of fraud, waste and abuse. I mean, I think he’s done an amazing job. I think his people have done an incredible job. They’re brilliant people. They know the computer. I actually asked him, “What’s their big trait?” He said, “They’re unbelievable at computers.” In other words, you can’t fake them out. Because these people were in many cases crooks, but it was fraud, waste and abuse. They found — your question should be asked a different way. “Were certain things found?” Yes. “How much?” $160 billion. Think of what $160 billion is. If you found 160 —
KRISTEN WELKER:
He said he’d find $2 trillion.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, we’re not finished yet. We’re not finished yet.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think the work continues even though he’s leaving?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Oh yes, of course, sure. He’s leaving behind some very brilliant people. They were on television last night. They’re super high IQ people. I like high IQ people. The Democrats don’t have many of them.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about some news that broke. You are threatening to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And yet, directing the IRS to investigate and rescind a university’s tax-exempt status is contrary to what’s in the federal law. The law says you can’t do this. Do you think you’re following the law?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I tell you, I’m going to just follow what the lawyers say. They say that we’re allowed to do that, and I’m all for it. But everything I say is subject to the laws being 100% adhered to.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are you willing to take this to court if it becomes a court fight?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure, why not?
KRISTEN WELKER:
You’re going to take it that far?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We’ve won a lot of cases.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, let’s talk about some of the other actions you’ve taken over the past 100 days. Last month, you directed your attorney general, Pam Bondi, to review two people who you perceive to be your political adversaries. And yet, you told me in December that you would not direct the Justice Department to investigate your political foes. What changed?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, no. I just look at people — and I’m not directing anybody. They looked at these two people. They might have known it or they might have heard it from two years ago. One person said, “He knew me so well,” he was I think on CNN or MSDNC, but they’re both failing networks, you’re happy to know. Even though one of them I guess is related to you in one form or another, although, they’re trying to cut them loose as fast as possible. But the — it was well-known that this one person, it was almost like he was my brother. I don’t even know who he is. Maybe he was there. Maybe he was in the Oval Office a few times as a surrogate for somebody in some form of government, along with 25 other people that sat in the back of the room or stood in the back of the room. I have no idea who this guy is. And he’s out there and then he did a book called “Anonymous.” Did a book called “Anonymous.” I think that’s really subversion. I think it’s spying, it’s something. It’s something really bad.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you passed an executive order calling for your attorney general to investigate that.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And I think he’s been looked at for a long time. And the other one said that the election was so wonderful. Well, it turned out it wasn’t a wonderful election. It was a corrupt election.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask it this way, sir, because when we talked in December, I asked you, what is your message to people who didn’t vote for you? Let me remind you of what you said. You said, “I love you, and we’re going to all work together.” How does pursuing your political foes help to unify the country?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Did I really say, “I love you?”
KRISTEN WELKER:
You really did. That’s a direct quote.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m sure you’re right, but I’d like to see that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I promise I’ll show it to you. I’ll show you the tape.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Look —
KRISTEN WELKER:
How does that help to unify the country?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I want to treat people fairly, whether they voted for me or not. I want to have a unified country. It’s very hard because the media’s so fake, including, like, even the way you ask questions. Every question is asked in a negative vein. “There’s a toy company that took a toddler’s you know whatever.” But you don’t talk about the fact that gasoline is down at numbers that nobody believes possible. You know why they’re down, by the way? Drill baby, drill. We’re drilling like crazy right now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We try to make sure every question is fair, Mr. President.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, look. Every question you ask says a very negative slant.
KRISTEN WELKER:
No, no, no. But I’m just curious, are you —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And I’m fine for responding to you. I don’t think you’re very difficult at all to respond to, to be honest with you. But you know what? You should ask some positive things, like, “Sir, it’s amazing what you’ve done with gasoline.” Because you know what? Gasoline’s big business. A stroller is not big business.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But to this question, Mr. President, you said you wanted to unify the country. Does going after political foes undercut that goal?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, not at all. No, we want honest people.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think you have to do that. And we want honest people in this country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you big picture. People who have lived in countries like the Philippines, Hungary, Russia, they look at some of your actions — going after civil service, going after universities, law firms, the media — they say it’s out of an authoritarian playbook. What do you say to those who believe you are taking the country down an authoritarian path?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, there you go again. Why don’t you ask it a different way? Many people want to come into our country. Many people love Trump. I won the election. They didn’t win the election. I got a lot more votes than they did. I won the popular vote. I won all seven swing states by a lot. A lot of people were surprised. They said, “I think he could win four, maybe five.” No, I won all seven, and I won by a lot. And I won. Actually, I think there was a lot of hanky panky going on but it was too big to rig. That’s the good news. It’s too big to rig. But let me just say, so when you make these statements about, “People say this –,” well, they had their chance at the election and they lost big. So you should ask the question differently —
KRISTEN WELKER:
What do you say to —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You should say, “What about the people that want to be in this country? What about the people that love this country?”
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. But what do you say to — I’m asking it on behalf of those people to give you a chance to respond to them. What do you say to those people, sir?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Those people are going to be very happy. They’re going to have to see some results. And I think we had a great 100 days. There are a lot of people that say it was unprecedented. It was an absolutely unprecedented 100 days. And I hope that they’re going to be right.
Read the full transcript: President Donald Trump interviewed by 'Meet the Press' moderator Kristen Welker
May 4, 2025, 10:00 AM MDT
I don't know if I need to uphold the Constitution."
-- Interview with Donald Trump, by Kristen Welker
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... rcna203514
Transcript
KRISTEN WELKER:
President Trump, welcome back to Meet the Press.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Thank you very much.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you so much for being here to mark your first 100 days in office. It has been an incredibly busy 100 days. You’ve signed more than 140 executive orders. You’ve been focused on the border, the economy, foreign policy. What is your biggest goal in the next 100 days?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I think we’re going to see a lot of results. We’ve already seen them. On the border, we have the best border in the history of our country. It was 99.999, and nobody ever thought that was possible. In fact, Biden, if you remember, said he has to get legislation. And I said, “No, you just need a new president.” And I guess I was right. We have the best border we’ve ever had. We’re doing great on illegal immigration. We are being hit hard by judges that I think they’re trying to take away the power of the presidency. I was elected in a massive landslide and a big, you know, big vote. We won the swing states. We won the popular vote. We won the district votes by tremendous numbers. We won everything. And one of the reasons — one of the primary reasons I was elected was to get people out of our country that were allowed. We have prisoners. We have murderers. We have terrorists in our country. We have people from mental institutions that are seriously insane. They all came in through Biden’s open border policy. And I was elected to get them out and to seal the border, but to get them out. And we’ll have judges, they’re activist judges. They’re saying, “Well, you know, you don’t have the right to take out murderers and — and people that you don’t even want to talk about.” These are really some really bad criminal people. And they’re here illegally. So, you know they talk about — your next question will be due process. But they talk about due process, but do you get due process when you’re here illegally?
KRISTEN WELKER:
We’re going to talk about all of that. We are going to talk about deportation. But I want to start on the economy, sir, which obviously — obviously the biggest issue for voters. We got new numbers today, better than expected job numbers.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Much better.
KRISTEN WELKER:
At the same time, the economy shrank in the first quarter. You’ve been arguing all week that this is President Biden’s economy. Is this now your economy, sir?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I think certain aspects of it are. Costs are. I was able to get down the costs. But even that, it takes a while to get them down, but we got them down good. We lost 5 to 6 billion dollars a day with Biden. Five to 6 billion. And I’ve got that down to a great number right now in a very — in a record time. You know, we’re talking about 100 days. But just think of what that is. Five billion dollars a day we’re losing on trade. And we were very tough with China, as you know. We put 145% tariff on. Nobody’s ever heard of such a thing. And we’ve essentially cut off trade relationships by putting that much of a tariff on. And that’s okay. We’ve gone cold turkey. That means that we’re not losing. You know, we lost a trillion dollars to China. A trillion dollars. That means we’re not losing a trillion dollars when we go cold turkey because we’re not doing business with them right now. And they want to make a deal. They want to make a deal very badly. We’ll see how that all turns out, but it’s got to be a fair deal. But think of it. We were losing a trillion dollars. And that was a big part of the 5 million dollars a day.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And I want to talk about China, but just staying on this idea of the economy. On the eve of your inauguration, the stock market spiked. You called it the “Trump Effect.” Are you —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It spiked because I was elected president. It didn’t spike because of anybody else. It spiked because they see what I’m going to do. They know what I’m going to do with the tariffs and everything else. And I think it’s actually working out better than we anticipated. Did you see oil prices? Did you see gasoline is now below, in many cases, in many states, below 2 dollars a gallon? $1.98, $1.99, $1.97?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, my question, sir, is you — when the stock market spiked, you said this is the “Trump effect.” When the numbers weren’t so good earlier this week, you said it’s the Biden effect. Are you only taking ownership of the good numbers and not the bad numbers?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I think he did a lot of very bad things. And despite some of the bad things, we’re overcoming them. But he was bad on the border. He was bad on the economy. We had the worst inflation in the history of our country. Look, Biden gave us the worst inflation in the history of our country. People — it didn’t matter what they made because they were losing their shirt because of costs. Now take a look at what happened. Oil is down. Gasoline is down. Groceries are down. Eggs. You were the one that asked me. You asked me about eggs. It was the first week. I didn’t even know anything about what you — we were talking about. Egg prices were so high, you couldn’t buy eggs. They didn’t have any eggs. And they said, “Easter is going to be a disaster.” Well, we had Easter at the White House, and we had thousands of eggs. And they were down 87%.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. A lot of that, of course, spike was because of bird flu. But when does it become —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I don’t know —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– the Trump economy?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– what it was. Why do you say that?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, tell me. When —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We had the same bird flu as he had.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When does it become the Trump economy?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It partially is right now. And I really mean this. I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts are the Biden economy because he’s done a terrible job. He did a terrible job on everything, from his autopen — which I’m sure he knew nothing about, some of the things he was supposedly signing — to immigration. You look at what happened with immigration, how bad it was. Think of it. We have murderers, 11,888 murderers, many of them murdered more than one person. Think of that. And they’re in our country. Now, we’ve gotten a lot of them out, and we know who many of them are. And we’re on the hunt. But why would anybody do that? Why would anybody — who could do such a thing where they’d allow hundreds of thousands, and even millions of people into our country — or criminals and murderers at the highest level. Who would do this?
KRISTEN WELKER:
But, sir, you acknowledge when you announced your tariffs, for example, the stock market dropped. It’s been volatile. It has —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– since gone up.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– it is, but now it’s —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you take responsibility —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Look at today. I take responsibility.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– for that? Yeah. Do you take responsibility when it drops?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Ultimately, I take responsibility for everything. But I’ve only just been here for a little more than three months. But the stock market, look at what’s happened in the last short period of time. Didn’t it have nine or ten days in a row, or 11 days, where it’s gone up? And the tariffs have just started kicking in. And we’re doing really well. Psychologically, I mean, the fake news was giving me such press on the tariffs. The tariffs are going to make us rich. We’re going to be a very rich country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So let’s talk about the tariffs. And I want to ask you about something you said this week. Got a lot of attention. You were at your Cabinet meeting. You said, quote — I’m going to quote what you said — “Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls. And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.” Are you saying that your tariffs will cause some prices to go up?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. I think tariffs are going to be great for us because it’s going to make us rich.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you said some dolls are going to cost more.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Isn’t that an acknowledgment —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t think —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– that some prices —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– children —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– will go up?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t think that a beautiful baby girl needs — that’s 11 years old — needs to have 30 dolls. I think they can have three dolls or four dolls because what we were doing with China was just unbelievable. We had a trade deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars with China.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When you say, “They could have three dolls instead of 30 dolls,” are you saying you’re —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m saying they don’t need to have 30 dolls —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– that Americans could see empty store shelves?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. No, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying they don’t need to have 30 dolls. They can have three. They don’t need to have 250 pencils. They can have five.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you’re basically saying there could be some supply shortages —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m basically saying —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– because of the tariffs.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– we don’t have to waste money on a trade deficit with China for things we don’t need, for junk that we don’t need.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, prices are already going up on some popular items —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– from tires to strollers —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Whoa, whoa. This is such a dishonest interview already.
KRISTEN WELKER:
No, no.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Prices are down on groceries. Prices are down for oil. Prices are down for all energy. Prices are down at tremendous numbers for gasoline. And let me tell you, when you have — the big thing, what he did, he spent like a stupid person, which he was. But he spent like a very stupid person. And that was bad for inflation. But what really killed us with inflation was the price of energy. It went up to $3.90, even $4. And in California, $5 and $6. Right? Okay. I have it down to $1.98 in many states right now. When you go that much lower on energy — which is ahead of my prediction because I really thought I could get it down into the $2.50s — we have it down at $1.98 in numerous places. But when you say costs are going up, even mortgage rates are going down. You know, we have mortgage rates —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But let me give you some examples. These are — I mean, these are actual examples. So you’re saying the prices that are going down. Some prices are going up. Tires, strollers, some clothing in the wake of your tariffs —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Excuse me. That’s peanuts compared to —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– energy. Energy is 60% of the cost.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But, sir, you campaigned —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Energy is a big —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– on a promise to bring prices down on day one.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I don’t know, when you say strollers are going up, what kind of a thing? I’m saying that gasoline is going down. Gasoline is thousands of times more important than a stroller or some place?
KRISTEN WELKER:
But what do you say to Americans who say they voted for you because they want and they need relief right now?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And they’re getting it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Right now? What about those —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Even mortgage rates. It was just announced —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– different items I just mentioned?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– mortgage rates are going down, despite the fact that we have a stubborn Fed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you said dolls — even dolls could cost a couple bucks more.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Maybe they might. But you don’t need to have, as I said, 35 dolls. You can have two, three, four, and save a lot of money. We don’t need to feed the beast.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I guess — you’re talking about this transition cost. How long should people expect that transition to last, Mr. President?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I can’t tell you that. I can tell you that we’re making a lot of money. We’re doing great. Again, we were losing more than $5 billion a day. $5 billion a day. You don’t talk about that. And right now, we’re going to be at a point very soon where we’re making money every day. Look —
KRISTEN WELKER:
How soon?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– we were losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China. Now we’re essentially not doing business with China. Therefore, we’re saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Very simple.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You take me to my next question, which is about China. They’ve been making a number of public statements.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Very positive statements in the last 24 hours.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and most recently, they said before talks could happen, the U.S. would need to remove unilateral tariffs. Would you consider dropping the tariffs to get China to the negotiating table?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. They — first of all, you’re giving me a statement that was said a week ago. You’re not giving the statement that was said today.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I have May 2nd, Chinese Commerce Ministry.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Do you know what they say today?
KRISTEN WELKER:
“If the U.S. wants to negotiate, it should show sincerity –”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
“We’re looking forward — ”
KRISTEN WELKER:
“ — by preparing to take actions in correcting its mistakes and canceling the unilateral tariffs.”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, no, no. They made — first of all, they made numerous statements.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes. They’ve made numerous statements.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know how many people speak for China?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’s like, you have 15 different —
KRISTEN WELKER:
They’ve made numerous statements —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I can give you a statement for any occasion.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes. Yes, yes.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But they said today they want to talk. Look, China — and I don’t like this. I’m not happy about this. China’s getting killed right now. They’re getting absolutely destroyed. Their factories are closing. Their unemployment is going through the roof. I’m not looking to do that to China. Now, at the same time, I’m not looking to have China make hundreds of billions of dollars and build more ships and more army tanks and more airplanes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you’re not prepared — just to be very clear, you’re not dropping the tariffs against China to get them to the negotiating table?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Why would I —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Those tariffs are staying on?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Why would I do that?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Would you lower them?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
At some point, I’m going to lower them because otherwise, you could never do business with them. And they want to do business very much. Look, their economy is really doing badly. Their economy is collapsing.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So small businesses say they are being hurt by the Chinese tariffs. And some could be forced to shut down.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And many businesses are being helped.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are you considering —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Look at the automobile —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– tariff relief for small businesses?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Why do you always mention that. You know, you pick up a couple of little businesses. What about the car business? They’re going to make a fortune because of the tariffs. Do you know that the union, the head of the union, who was no fan of mine, Fain, Shawn Fain I guess his name is, right? He didn’t endorse me. The Teamsters did. A lot of people did. A lot of unions did. But he didn’t. He couldn’t stand me. Now he’s saying, “Wow. What Trump’s done for the automobile, I can’t believe it.” I assume he’s going to probably now say — the next thing he can say is, “I endorse this guy. He’s the greatest I’ve ever seen.” He can’t believe it’s happened. He said, “We’ve been waiting 40 years for somebody to do what Trump is doing.” So why don’t you mention the big car industry instead of mentioning somebody that’s doing strollers?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, I’m just asking you about small businesses. Are there any discussions about giving any relief to small businesses?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
They’re not going to need it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Are these —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
They’re going to make so much money —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are these tariffs —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– if you build your product here. Remember, there are no tariffs if you build your product here. It’s very easy. It’s very simple.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are these tariffs permanent, Mr. President?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Depends on what you’re talking about. One of the things that is going to bring, and has brought — so I think we probably have close to $9 trillion of investments coming into this country. If you look at other presidents, there’s never been anything like that. This is over a period of two months. You’ve got to give me a little break on the one month because we’re three months. But, you know, let’s say we had to get started. We had a lot of fake news at the beginning, so we had to beat that down. But so let’s say in two months. So in just a short period of time — a matter of a couple of months — we have the largest number ever in history invested in the United States and committed. We have between, guaranteed, spoken for and people that are going to make a decision and announce it pretty soon, close to $9 trillion. We’ve never had anything close. Now, that’s Apple building $500 billion worth of plants. They always built their plants in China. Now they’re building their plants over here. That’s the biggest computer company, the biggest chip company in the world. You know, the chip company from Taiwan, which is the biggest in the world, is committed for $500 billion. Another one’s committed for $300 billion. We have companies, nobody’s ever seen anything like it. Let me tell you the other thing, very importantly — automobile companies. Plant, after plant, after plant: Toyota, Honda, Ford, General Motors, Stellantis, I mean, nobody’s ever seen anything like it. And I don’t like this, but it happens to be. They’re stopping work in Mexico, and they’re stopping work in Canada, and they’re all moving here.
KRISTEN WELKER:
This is important though. You’re not taking the possibility that these tariffs could be permanent off the table — some of them?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, I wouldn’t do that because if somebody thought they were going to come off the table, why would they build in the United States?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You understand that, right?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. No, I mean, that’s why I’m asking because there’s a lot of, I think, uncertainty for CEOs, for business owners. They want to know are these tariffs —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
See, I don’t think there is uncertainty.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– permanent?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think there’s only uncertainty in the fake news. I don’t think there’s uncertainty. I mean, I’ve been very rigid, very strong on it. But I will say I have — I’m flexible. Like, with respect to parts made outside of the country, I gave the automobile companies a little extra time. You know, you’re talking about 15%, and then 10% of the parts made — put in a car. I gave them a little extra time without penalizing them. And I did that only to help, you know, companies. We’re looking to help companies. We want them to thrive and to hire a lot of people and that’s what’s happening.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about some of what Wall Street has said. Some people on Wall Street have expressed concerns that the possibility of a recession is increasing. And I want to know what you think about that. Are you comfortable with the country potentially dipping into a recession for a period of time if you are able to achieve your long term goals?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, you know, you say some people on Wall Street say, well, I’ll tell you something else. Some people on Wall Street say that we’re going to have the greatest economy in history. Why don’t you talk about them? Because some people on Wall Street say this is the greatest —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, that’s what I’m getting at —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– thing that ever happened.
KRISTEN WELKER:
That’s what I’m getting at though. It’s —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
There are many people —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– the same question.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah. There are many people on Wall Street that say, “This is going to be the greatest windfall ever happen.”
KRISTEN WELKER:
And that’s my question —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Remember this —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– the long term.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is it okay in the short term to have a recession?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Remember this. Look, yeah. Everything’s okay. What we are — I said, this is a transition period. I think we’re going to do fantastically. One of your colleagues on another fake news station, ABC, said, “Do you guarantee 100% that a certain person is going to do a fantastic job as, let’s say, Secretary of Defense?” Okay? Because that was the question. I said, “What kind of a question is that? Do I guarantee 100%? Nobody guarantees 100%.” But I will say this. I think we’re going to have an economy the likes of which we’ve never had before. You know, my four years were phenomenal, as you know. The stock market. In fact, even though we had to go through the Covid thing, that horrible situation with Covid, we did numbers — and when I gave it over, when I handed it over, the election was rigged, and I handed it — and because of that, we have a lot of problems, by the way. But when I handed it over, what happened? The market was higher than it was previous to just previous to Covid coming in. Nobody could believe it. The stock market, I’m talking about.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I don’t want to look back, but you did take your case to court about that.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, you got to look back.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You took your case to court about your allegations against the election. Let me ask you, sir —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Ah, no no no. There’s no question about it. The election was rigged. The facts are in. And it’s still being litigated. Let’s go.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You did take your case to court more than 60 times —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, no, sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– and didn’t win those cases.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure. And I won a lot of court cases —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just to button that up though, sir, just to button that up —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
What are you talking about? The election of —
KRISTEN WELKER:
How worried are you —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Are we talking about the election of 2020?
KRISTEN WELKER:
No, let’s talk about the here and now. Let’s talk about here and now —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
The election of 2020?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s not talk about — let’s talk about here and now. Are you worried about a recession?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. No. I think we’re going to have the greatest economic —
KRISTEN WELKER:
I mean, are you worried it could happen? Do you think it could happen?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Anything can happen. But I think we’re going to have the greatest economy in the history of our country. I think we’re going to have the greatest economic boom in history.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about this call to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos this week in response to a report that Amazon was going to display tariff costs next to product prices. Are you going to punish CEOs who increase their prices because of tariffs?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think what’s — what is a great misnomer is the word “tariff” in many cases, it’s not — to me, I don’t view it as a tax. I view it as an incentive for people to come into the United States and build plants, factories, offices, a lot of things. I think it’s an incentive. But the thing that’s not known is, if you look back and see, oftentimes, like China or Vietnam or other countries, not just China, because China’s an abuser, but there are other abusers. Many of them are friends, the so-called — I say friend and foe, and friend is oftentimes worse than foe. But what people don’t understand is, and this is a lot, the country eats the tariff. The company eats the tariff. And it’s not passed along at all.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, some CEOs —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t view it as a tax.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– are saying they’re going to have to pass it on. So how do you deal with those CEOs?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It may. It may. But the company —
KRISTEN WELKER:
How do you deal with those CEOs?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
China is eating the tariffs right now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What do you say to those CEOs who are saying, “We might have to pass this on to the consumer?”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, they say that because maybe it’s to their advantage to say it. Maybe they don’t —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Will you punish them?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, because you know what? I want them to build plants in the United States. That way, they don’t have any tariffs. See, tariffs will — and not only will, look at what’s happened. In two months, we’re close to $9 trillion of investment. We’ve never been anywhere near that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What did you say to Jeff Bezos?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
He’s just a very nice guy. We have a relationship. I asked him about it. He said, “Well, I don’t want to do that,” and he took it off immediately.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So he changed course. And will you take that same tactic with other CEOs if you feel like —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure. I’ll always call people if I disagree with them.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You’ll —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
If I think that somebody’s doing something that’s incorrect, wrong, or maybe hurtful to the country, I’ll call. Absolu — wouldn’t you want me to call? Biden wouldn’t call because he didn’t know what was happening, but I do.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Takes me to my next question. Today’s strong jobs report likely means — not clear, but likely means — the Fed is less likely to lower interest rates soon.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, he should lower them. And at some point, he will. He’d rather not because he’s not a fan of mine. You know, he just doesn’t like me because I think he’s a total stiff. And, you know, it’s just one of those things. He should lower them. And I wish the people that are on that board would get him to lower because we are at a perfect time. It’s already late. But he should lower interest rates.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you rule out removing Fed Chair Jerome Powell?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m not — you know, I get to change him very quickly anyway. You know, it’s in a very short period of time.
KRISTEN WELKER:
In 2026. You’re not going to remove — you don’t have plans to remove him before 2026 when his time’s up?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, no, no. That was a total — why would I do that? I get to replace the person in another short period of time.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. This week, you reshuffled your national security team.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You moved National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to U.N. ambassador. Just to remind our viewers, Waltz, of course, started that unsecure text chain where sensitive information was shared. Mr. President, was that move a punishment?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. I just think he’ll do a nice job in the new position. Marco’s doing an outstanding job. Now, Marco won’t keep — Marco’s very busy doing other things, so he’s not going to keep it long term. We’re going to put somebody else in. But I think Mike was a — as you know, he’s a fine guy. And I think he’ll do a very good job — knows the countries, knows leadership. And I think he’ll do a very good at the United Nations. And in the meantime, Marco’s really doing something special. And it’s going to work out very well.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We’re hearing some potential names. Stephen Miller’s name, one of your long-time, most loyal aides. His name has been talked about as a potential national security advisor. Is he someone you’re looking at?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I’d love to have Stephen there, but that would be a downgrade. Stephen is very — Stephen is much higher on the totem pole than that, in my opinion.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Can you tell us who the front-runner is right now?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I have a lot of people that want it. I will tell you, I have everybody calling. Everybody wants to be a part of this administration. So at some point we’ll — you know, probably do that. You know, there’s a theory. Henry Kissinger did both. There’s a theory that you don’t need two people. But I think I have some really great people that could do a good job.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So Secretary Rubio could continue to have both jobs indefinitely?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
He could, yeah. He could. But I think he even would like to probably see — because it is a little bit different. But in the meantime, he’ll handle it. And I think Mike, if that goes forward, you know, he still has to get approved. But I think Mike will do a very good job at the United Nations.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth obviously also on that unsecure text chain. He was sharing sensitive information. Are you looking for a new secretary of defense, Mr. President?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. Not even a little bit. No. Pete’s going to be great. We’re —
KRISTEN WELKER:
His job is safe right now?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We’re doing a fantastic job against the Houthis, who like blowing ships up and watching them sink in the ocean. We’re hitting them very hard. No, he’s doing a very good job.
KRISTEN WELKER:
His job is safe right now?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Totally safe.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let’s talk about the border.. Let’s talk about deportations. Border crossings are at their lowest level ever recorded. Is the border —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Is that good?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is the border now secure?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, it’s really secure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s absolutely secure?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Isn’t that good, though? When you say that, doesn’t that just sound good? After being abused for years by an incompetent president that allowed people to pour through an open border, criminals from all over the world, murderers and insane people from mental institutions and insane asylums, isn’t it — isn’t it a beautiful thing when you say, “It’s the most secure it’s ever been in the history of our country.” Isn’t that a nice statement?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, I’m curious to know what it means. You declared a national emergency on the southern border.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
The order is still in place. Even though —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
By the way, it means exactly what you said, you know —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– you’re saying the border is secure. Yes.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Means we have the most secure border we’ve ever had.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and I guess the question becomes —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’s not complicated.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– when will you know that the emergency is over? Are you planning to lift it at some point? Is it necessary? Because obviously, the military’s involved. Will you lift that — that emergency order, sir?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, the biggest emergency is the courts aren’t allowing us to take really —
KRISTEN WELKER:
We’re going to talk about that, but talk to me first about this —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, that’s to me the emergency because —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Talk to me first about this, the emergency —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
The border now is not the emergency. The border is — it’s all part of the same thing though. The big emergency right now is that we have thousands of people that we want to take out, and we have some judges that want everybody to go to court —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Some of them you appointed, sir, including three on the Supreme Court.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
That’s all right. I mean, they change. I mean, it’s unbelievable. It’s unbelievable how that happens, but they do change.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just to button this up, though, are you planning to lift that emergency order any time soon now that the border’s secure? You say the border’s secure.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, no, no. We have an emergency. We have a massive emergency overall. It’s an overall emergency on immigration. And the — if the courts don’t allow us to take people out, if we had to have a court case every single — think of it. Every single person, we have millions of people. If you have millions of court cases, figure two weeks a court case, it would be 300 years.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So let’s talk about this, because obviously, you’ve had a back and forth with the Supreme Court. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court directed your administration to facilitate the return, you’ve talked about this in the past, of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, from a prison in El Salvador, whose deportation your administration called an “administrative error.” You said in a recent interview you could bring him back but you won’t. Are you defying the Supreme Court, sir?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. I’m relying on the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who’s very capable, doing a great job. Because I’m not involved in the legality or the illegality. I have lawyers to do that and that’s why I have a great DOJ. We have a great one. We had a very corrupt one before. Now we have a great one. And they’re not viewing the decision the way you said it. They don’t view it that way at all. They think it’s a totally different decision.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you say you have the power to bring him back, though. Your attorney general says, quote, “That’s up to El Salvador.” Just to put a fine point on this, do you have the power to bring Abrego Garcia back as the Supreme Court has ordered?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I have the power to ask for him to come back if I’m instructed by the attorney general that it’s legal to do so. But the decision as to whether or not he should come back will be the head of El Salvador. He’s a very capable man.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you know, and your attorney general has said the issue is with that word “facilitate.” Will you seek clarification from the Supreme Court? Do you need to go back to the Supreme Court?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We may do that. I was asking about that. We may do that. There are some people that say, “Bring him back, put him in trial, and you get him out right away.” Because you take — you see what happened just this morning, tapes came out, horrible tapes from his wife. You don’t get much worse than that. You don’t get, I mean, he seems certainly like a very dangerous, very bad person. But even the wife who was so afraid, she was afraid to talk, and all of a sudden tapes got released this morning that were devastating to him.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And this is the point, sir, about due process. The Constitution says every person, citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process. Why not push to have him come back, present all of that evidence in court, let a judge decide?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I’ll leave that to the lawyers, and I’ll leave that to the attorney general of the United States, because —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But do you agree —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– they’re in it. You have to understand. I’m dealing with Russia and Ukraine. I’m dealing with China —
KRISTEN WELKER:
And we’re going to talk about that.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m dealing with Iran. I’m dealing with Rwanda and the Congo who are fighting and we’re trying to get that one straightened out. And I think we have done that, did a great job. Nobody even talks about it, but I think we’re close to doing that. They’re looking like they’re going to maybe make a peace deal, which was — would be good. But I’m dealing with a lot of different things. I don’t know much about this gentleman other than I hear he’s an absolute not good person. And I have very capable legal people, John Sauer, as you know, and all top people. And I have to rely on that to interpret whatever is said by the Supreme Court. Now with that being said, I have tremendous respect for the Supreme Court. Look, three of the people are people I appointed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Right.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And I have great respect for the Supreme Court. And I would expect that the attorney general will be doing the right thing.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Your secretary of state says everyone who’s here, citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process. Do you agree, Mr. President?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, the Fifth Amendment says as much.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials. We have thousands of people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But is —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Some of the worst, most dangerous people on Earth. And I was elected to get them the hell out of here and the courts are holding me from doing it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But even given those numbers that you’re talking about, don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said is not what I heard the Supreme Court said. They have a different interpretation.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is anyone in your administration right now in contact with El Salvador about returning Abrego Garcia to the United States?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t know. You’d have to ask the attorney general that question.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. At least two Americans have been mistakenly detained and released by your administration, immigration authorities. Mr. President, should lawful residents of this country start carrying paperwork with them when they leave their homes to be able to prove that they’re —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t think that’ll be necessary, but what you’re not saying is that many people have been killed, maimed, badly hurt by illegal immigrants that came over that are from prisons and from jails and from mental institutions. And they’re hurting our people. And if we don’t get them out, we’re not going to have a country for long.
KRISTEN WELKER:
There —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We need honest media, and we need walls. We need to have borders. And, by the way, I built a lot of walls, and if we didn’t do that, we wouldn’t be able to have those — you know, we would not be able to have the kind of numbers if I wasn’t successful in building hundreds of miles of wall.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Very quickly, sir. The last time you and I spoke in December, you said that you would consider working on getting Dreamers legal status. Dreamers, of course, those who are brought here illegally as children. Where do those efforts stand —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Many, many years ago —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is that a priority for you?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it’s not a priority for the Democrats because every time we talk about it, they don’t want to talk about it because I guess they like it as a political issue. But they’re not good at political issues because they still want to have men play in women’s sports.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, Republicans do control Congress right now, Mr. President. Are you going to make —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, but the Democrats don’t —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– Dreamers a priority?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, for that, you would need to have support from Democrats, and we have no support from the Democrats.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Have you had any discussions about Dreamers?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, we’ve had discussions. We would do something. I’d love to put a beautiful immigration for everybody. But the Democrats don’t want to approve anything. All they want to do is knock out a tax bill. We’re trying to get approved right now the biggest tax cut in the history of our country, and if it doesn’t get approved, it’s a 68% tax increase, and that’s what the Democrats want. They want a 68% tax increase. It’s rather incredible.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And I do want to talk to you about your legislation, but let’s talk about DOGE very quickly. DOGE has fired and then rehired thousands of federal workers, including FAA employees in charge of aviation safety, specialists working on nuclear weapon safety. What do you say to those who believe Elon Musk’s chain saw approach has jeopardized the safety and security of Americans?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, he found $160 billion worth of fraud, waste and abuse. I mean, I think he’s done an amazing job. I think his people have done an incredible job. They’re brilliant people. They know the computer. I actually asked him, “What’s their big trait?” He said, “They’re unbelievable at computers.” In other words, you can’t fake them out. Because these people were in many cases crooks, but it was fraud, waste and abuse. They found — your question should be asked a different way. “Were certain things found?” Yes. “How much?” $160 billion. Think of what $160 billion is. If you found 160 —
KRISTEN WELKER:
He said he’d find $2 trillion.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, we’re not finished yet. We’re not finished yet.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think the work continues even though he’s leaving?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Oh yes, of course, sure. He’s leaving behind some very brilliant people. They were on television last night. They’re super high IQ people. I like high IQ people. The Democrats don’t have many of them.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about some news that broke. You are threatening to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And yet, directing the IRS to investigate and rescind a university’s tax-exempt status is contrary to what’s in the federal law. The law says you can’t do this. Do you think you’re following the law?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I tell you, I’m going to just follow what the lawyers say. They say that we’re allowed to do that, and I’m all for it. But everything I say is subject to the laws being 100% adhered to.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are you willing to take this to court if it becomes a court fight?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure, why not?
KRISTEN WELKER:
You’re going to take it that far?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We’ve won a lot of cases.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right, let’s talk about some of the other actions you’ve taken over the past 100 days. Last month, you directed your attorney general, Pam Bondi, to review two people who you perceive to be your political adversaries. And yet, you told me in December that you would not direct the Justice Department to investigate your political foes. What changed?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, no. I just look at people — and I’m not directing anybody. They looked at these two people. They might have known it or they might have heard it from two years ago. One person said, “He knew me so well,” he was I think on CNN or MSDNC, but they’re both failing networks, you’re happy to know. Even though one of them I guess is related to you in one form or another, although, they’re trying to cut them loose as fast as possible. But the — it was well-known that this one person, it was almost like he was my brother. I don’t even know who he is. Maybe he was there. Maybe he was in the Oval Office a few times as a surrogate for somebody in some form of government, along with 25 other people that sat in the back of the room or stood in the back of the room. I have no idea who this guy is. And he’s out there and then he did a book called “Anonymous.” Did a book called “Anonymous.” I think that’s really subversion. I think it’s spying, it’s something. It’s something really bad.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you passed an executive order calling for your attorney general to investigate that.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And I think he’s been looked at for a long time. And the other one said that the election was so wonderful. Well, it turned out it wasn’t a wonderful election. It was a corrupt election.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask it this way, sir, because when we talked in December, I asked you, what is your message to people who didn’t vote for you? Let me remind you of what you said. You said, “I love you, and we’re going to all work together.” How does pursuing your political foes help to unify the country?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Did I really say, “I love you?”
KRISTEN WELKER:
You really did. That’s a direct quote.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m sure you’re right, but I’d like to see that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I promise I’ll show it to you. I’ll show you the tape.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Look —
KRISTEN WELKER:
How does that help to unify the country?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I want to treat people fairly, whether they voted for me or not. I want to have a unified country. It’s very hard because the media’s so fake, including, like, even the way you ask questions. Every question is asked in a negative vein. “There’s a toy company that took a toddler’s you know whatever.” But you don’t talk about the fact that gasoline is down at numbers that nobody believes possible. You know why they’re down, by the way? Drill baby, drill. We’re drilling like crazy right now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We try to make sure every question is fair, Mr. President.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, look. Every question you ask says a very negative slant.
KRISTEN WELKER:
No, no, no. But I’m just curious, are you —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And I’m fine for responding to you. I don’t think you’re very difficult at all to respond to, to be honest with you. But you know what? You should ask some positive things, like, “Sir, it’s amazing what you’ve done with gasoline.” Because you know what? Gasoline’s big business. A stroller is not big business.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But to this question, Mr. President, you said you wanted to unify the country. Does going after political foes undercut that goal?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, not at all. No, we want honest people.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think you have to do that. And we want honest people in this country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you big picture. People who have lived in countries like the Philippines, Hungary, Russia, they look at some of your actions — going after civil service, going after universities, law firms, the media — they say it’s out of an authoritarian playbook. What do you say to those who believe you are taking the country down an authoritarian path?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, there you go again. Why don’t you ask it a different way? Many people want to come into our country. Many people love Trump. I won the election. They didn’t win the election. I got a lot more votes than they did. I won the popular vote. I won all seven swing states by a lot. A lot of people were surprised. They said, “I think he could win four, maybe five.” No, I won all seven, and I won by a lot. And I won. Actually, I think there was a lot of hanky panky going on but it was too big to rig. That’s the good news. It’s too big to rig. But let me just say, so when you make these statements about, “People say this –,” well, they had their chance at the election and they lost big. So you should ask the question differently —
KRISTEN WELKER:
What do you say to —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You should say, “What about the people that want to be in this country? What about the people that love this country?”
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. But what do you say to — I’m asking it on behalf of those people to give you a chance to respond to them. What do you say to those people, sir?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Those people are going to be very happy. They’re going to have to see some results. And I think we had a great 100 days. There are a lot of people that say it was unprecedented. It was an absolutely unprecedented 100 days. And I hope that they’re going to be right.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37503
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Mon May 05, 2025 7:20 pm
Part 2 of 2
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you see dissent as an essential part of democracy?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’s a part of democracy. It is. You’re always going to have dissent —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is it an important part of democracy?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You’re always going to have — Kristen, you’re always going to have dissent. There’s nothing you’re going to do about that. Am I going to get 100% unified? It would be a strange place. I can’t even imagine it where 100%. Look. You have people that are good people. They’re very smart people. And they honestly believe we should have open borders and the entire world should be allowed to pour into our country. I think it’s a 95/5 issue, but they believe it. They’re not even bad people. Some of them are bad. You have people that honestly believe that men should be allowed to play in women’s sports. Some of these people I really, actually I don’t know any. I haven’t been able to find any, but they exist. They say it’s an 80/20 issue. I don’t believe that. I think it’s a 97 to three issue.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think people should have the right to criticize you without fear of reprisal?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Absolutely. Yeah, I do. That I do.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And how do you square that —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And I think that happens.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How do you square that with the fact that you have passed these executive orders asking the attorney general to look into some of the people who’ve criticized you, who’ve been harshest against you?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I have been investigated more than any person in the history of the United States of America. I’ve been investigated more than the late great, as they say at my rallies, Alphonse Capone. Alphonse Capone was a nasty man. He was a — the highest level gangster. And I have been investigated more than Al Capone, more than anybody. These people are evil people. And I won. And I’ll tell you what. All I want to happen is for the Department of Justice and the FBI. Pam is great and Kash is great. I think they’re two great people. But they’re their own people. They want to do a fantastic job. And all I want to do and all I want to ask for is that they be allowed to do their job. I’m not telling them to do anything. And I believe I have the right to do it. I’m, in theory, the top law enforcement officer as the president. We went over this once before, and it turned out I was right. But I’m not looking to use that. We have two great people, and we have many, many incredible people under them. And I just want them to do their job and do it well.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about something I don’t think you’ve been asked much about, which is you’ve branded your own cryptocurrency. The coin’s value actually surged recently after you announced that top holders would be invited to have dinner —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t even know that. What did it surge to —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— that people wanted to — what did it surge to?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah. What’s it worth? You might as well tell me, because I have no idea.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, it surged, I will find it, hold on one second, 5.2 or 58%, so 58%.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
To what number?
KRISTEN WELKER:
That’s not bad, 14.32.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
What, billion?
KRISTEN WELKER:
For — no, dollars per cryptocurrency.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Billion dollars?
KRISTEN WELKER:
No.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
What’s the number? I mean, what is the amount?
KRISTEN WELKER:
The meme coin’s value hit a peak of 75.35 on January 19.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, that doesn’t mean anything.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And that’s before your inauguration, and then it surged.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Look. I’m in favor of crypto.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. But let me just ask you —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know what I’m in favor of it —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– what do you say to those who argue that when they hear that, they worry you’re profiting from the presidency?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m not profiting from anything. All I’m doing is, I started this long before the election. I want crypto. I think crypto’s important because if we don’t do it, China’s going to. And it’s new, it’s very popular, it’s very hot. If you look at the market, when the market went down, that stayed much stronger than other aspects of the market. But I want crypto because a lot of people, you know millions of people want it. I don’t know if you know that Biden went after it violently, and then before the election, he changed his tune entirely. His head of the SEC, everybody changed their tune. You know why? Because there were hundreds of millions of people that are participating in crypto, and they wanted to get their votes. But it didn’t work–
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you’re not profiting off of the cryptocurrency at all?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I haven’t even looked.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Has your family?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But I’ll tell you what. Look, if I own stock in something and I do a good job, and the stock market goes up, I guess I’m profiting. But who really profits is somebody like Nancy Pelosi, who uses inside information. She worked for $175,000 a year, and that’s at the high end. And she’s worth $150, $200 million? Okay? You ought to look at Nancy Pelosi and you ought to look at some of these politicians that are stone cold crooks. I was very wealthy when I came in. Being president probably cost me money if you really look. In fact, I do something that no other president has done, they think maybe George Washington has done. I contribute my entire salary to the government, back to the government. And I’m doing it again.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So will you contribute anything you earn from crypto back to the government if that happens?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I never thought of that. I mean, should I contribute all of my real estate that I’ve owned for many years if it goes up a little bit because I’m president and doing a good job? I don’t think so.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But I’ve done something that surprisingly they say nobody else has done, no other president has done. I give, and it’s a substantial salary. It’s a half a million dollars a year or $550,000 a year, four years, couple of million dollars. I gave it to the government last time. I never got a story saying I gave it. Nobody cared if I gave it. I guarantee if I didn’t give it, there’d be a big story. But no other president, they say with the possible exception of George Washington, and they haven’t been able to find those records. And we’ve had wealthy presidents before, but no other president has contributed his salary. And they told me before this that you will probably be asking me whether or not I’m going to contribute my salary again. But you haven’t asked that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are you going to?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You are? Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yes. I am.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Well, I appreciate — we just made news there. Let’s talk about foreign policy, sir. You just signed a minerals deal with Ukraine. It’s a sign, it seems, that the United States is invested in Ukraine’s future. The secretary of state told me this is a very critical week. Are you any closer to reaching a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I hope so.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How would you characterize it?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I do believe we’re closer with one party, and maybe not as close with the other. But we’ll have to see. I’d like to not say which one we’re closer to. But we did do a deal for the American people that was good. We were able to get rare earth, you know? The Europeans are getting paid back. They have a loan. We didn’t — Biden just gave them $350 billion. He has no idea where the money is, what happened. And at least we’ll, in one form or another, get our — yeah, I don’t feel so foolish. And remember this, this is Biden’s war. This was a war that was never going to happen if I were president. This is a horrible, horrible war. And I get to see shots of soldiers through, you know, satellite that are so, just so, terrible. 5,000 soldiers are being, look 5,000 soldiers a week on average are dying. They’re not American soldiers. But I want to solve the problem. They’re Russian soldiers, and they’re Ukrainian soldiers. And if I can save 5,000 souls, I just love doing it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How long do you give both countries before you’re going to walk away?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, there will be a time when I will say, “Okay, keep going. Keep being stupid and keep fighting.”
KRISTEN WELKER:
When does that come? Are you close to it?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sometimes I get close to it, and then positive things happen, okay? So I hope it gets done.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Your close ally, Senator Lindsey Graham, has a sanctions bill against Russia. If you get to that point, Mr. President, where you’re prepared to walk away, will you support — will you sign that sanctions bill?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it depends on whether or not Russia is behaving toward coming to a peace. We want a peace deal. We want Russia and Ukraine to agree to a deal. We think we’re fairly close, and we’re going to save a lot of people from being killed. Going to save a lot of money, too. Because we’re spending money like — you know, Europe is spending a third of the money that we’re spending. And it’s more important for Europe than it is for us. Biden had no control. He just sent money over there willy-nilly, nobody had any idea what was happening, why they were doing it, why they were sending it. And it was massive amounts of money.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you think you’re close to a deal? What will Russia have to give up? Because Ukraine, there’s been discussions they will have to give up some of the land that Russia’s illegally claimed.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine. Because that’s what they want.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All of Ukraine? Meaning they wouldn’t keep any of the land that they have claimed?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, no. Russia would have to give up all of Ukraine. Because what Russia wants is all of Ukraine. And if I didn’t get involved, they would be fighting right now for all of Ukraine. Russia doesn’t want the strip that they have now; Russia wants all of Ukraine. And if it weren’t me, they would keep going. Do you know that the European Union leaders have asked me to call Putin so many times? Because he doesn’t return their phone call.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You, you, posted on social media he might be “tapping” you along.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Might be.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Did you misread him–
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But you might be tapping me along, too, when you tell me how nice an interview this is going to be. So you know, I’m used to being tapped along.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Did you in any way misread Vladimir Putin?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Did I what?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Misread him? Now that you’re saying that.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, I’ll tell you about in a month from now, or two weeks from now. I have no idea. I can tell you this, he’s — his ambition was stopped to a large extent when he saw that it was me that was now leading the charge. Because he wasn’t dealing with anybody in Europe, he wasn’t calling them back. Do you know that I asked him, I said, “Did Biden ever call you in three years? Did Biden ever call?” He said, “He never called.” You know, Biden didn’t call him one time? And all these thousands of soldiers, hundreds, millions of soldiers are dying, and people, not only soldiers. People dying in the cities, and the towns, and the whole heritage of that country is being blown apart. I mean, the country’s heritage is being blown apart. You know the steeples, those beautiful spires that you see, you know the most beautiful in the world? Almost 95% of them are laying in smithereens, all broken up and, so sad, laying all over the ground because they were shot. It’s really a bad situation. And he didn’t get one phone call from Biden. The war would’ve never started. And by the way, for four years it didn’t start. I was there for four years, it was the apple of his eye. This was the apple of Putin’s eye. There was no chance he would have gone in.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What’s the red line for you? At what point do you say, “That’s it, we’re walking away?”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, you’ll know. I mean, there will be a time when I may say that. And if I do —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you’re not there?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– there may be something. I can’t — maybe it’s not possible to do. There’s tremendous hatred, just so you understand. Kristen, we’re talking tremendous hatred between these two men and between, you know, some of the soldiers, frankly. Between the generals. They’ve been fighting hard for three years. I think we have a very good chance of doing it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Very quickly, if you do walk away, would that mean that you would pull military and intelligence sharing?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t want to say that now. It’s too early to say that. I don’t want to get into that argument.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, let’s move onto Canada. You have long talked about making Canada the 51st state. There’s obviously a new prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney, who you spoke to —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Correct.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– after his victory. He says that you didn’t talk to him in that call about making Canada a 51st state.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. He called me, he was very nice, and I congratulated him. He had a victory. It’s a very close victory. You know, there’s no majority or anything, so that’s going to make things a little bit difficult, I think, for him to run. But he’d nevertheless had a victory. And he’s a very nice man, I think.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you plan to talk to him about making Canada a 51st state?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
He wants to come and see me. He’s going to come this week or next week.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So will you talk to him about making Canada a 51st state, annexing Canada?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’ll always talk about that. You know why? We subsidize Canada to the tune of $200 billion a year. We don’t need their cars. In fact, we don’t want their cars. We don’t need their energy. We don’t even want their energy. We have more than they do. We don’t want their lumber. We have great lumber. All I have to do is free it up from the environmental lunatics. We don’t need anything that they have. We’re giving them — I asked, I asked Mr. Trudeau — who I call Governor Trudeau, not Prime Minister, Governor — I said, “Governor Trudeau, could I ask you one question? Why are we giving you $200 billion? Why are we subsidizing Canada?” If Canada was a state it wouldn’t cost us. It would be great. It would be such a great — it would be a cherished state. And, if you look at our map, if you look at the geography — I’m a real estate guy at heart. When I look down at that without that artificial line that was drawn with a ruler many years ago — was just an artificial line, goes straight across. You don’t even realize. What a beautiful country it would be. It would be great. But, I don’t think the American public wants me to pay $200 billion a year to subsidize Canada. Again, remember this, we don’t need their cars, we don’t need their lumber, we don’t need their energy. We don’t need anything. We do very little business with Canada. They do all of their business practically with us. They need us. We don’t need them.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You and I talked, and I asked you if you would rule out military force to take Greenland. And you said, no, you don’t rule out anything. Would you rule out military force to take Canada?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I think we’re not going to ever get to that point. It could happen. Something could happen with Greenland. I’ll be honest, we need that for national and international security. But I think —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But not with Canada?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– it’s highly unlikely. I don’t see it with Canada. I just don’t see it, I have to be honest with you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, but you don’t rule it out for Greenland?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And by the way, Canada, they spend less money on military than practically any nation in the world. They pay NATO less than any nation. They think we are subsidizing, they think we are going to protect them, and really, we are. But the truth is, they don’t carry their full share, and it’s unfair to the United States and our taxpayers.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you are not ruling out military force to take Greenland one day?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t rule it out. I don’t say I’m going to do it, but I don’t rule out anything. No, not there. We need Greenland very badly. Greenland is a very small amount of people, which we’ll take care of, and we’ll cherish them, and all of that. But we need that for international security. Do you know, we have Russian boats and we have Chinese boats, gun ships all over the place — aircraft carriers, gun ships — going up and down the coast of Greenland. We need that to be protected. Internationally we need it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you are willing to send U.S. troops to claim a sovereign territory?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I didn’t say that. You asked me a question, “Would you, is there a circumstance?” It could happen. I doubt it will, but it certainly could happen with respect to Greenland.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let me ask you about Iran. Your administration has had conversations with Iran. Is the goal of these talks limiting Iran’s nuclear program or total dismantlement?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Total dismantlement.
KRISTEN WELKER:
That’s all you’ll accept?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, that’s all I’d accept. Now, there’s a new theory going out there that Iran would be allowed to have civilian — meaning to make electricity and to — but I say, you know, they have so much oil, what do they need it for? But you know, I’ve seen it with other states, where they’re looking to do something and they have a lot of oil. Iran has tremendous energy. You know I put sanctions, if you know that, I put pretty strong sanctions on two days ago, on the oil. The sad part is that if Biden didn’t get involved, if we had a competent president, you would’ve never had the attack on Israel. October 7th would’ve never taken place. Hamas would’ve had no money. Because Iran was broke. And now in a period of four years, during the Biden administration, they became very rich. They have over $300 million cash in the bank. And they had no money. They were ready to make a deal with me, and it’s very sad. Because of this rigged election they didn’t do it. Just another thing you can mark down to a bad election.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s interesting what you’re saying, though. Because Secretary Rubio has said that he would accept, or the idea is that there is an openness to accepting a peaceful, civil nuclear program.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well that’s what people — I didn’t say anything contradictory. I said that people are talking about that. And this is something that’s really pretty new in the dialogue. And I’d have to be, you know, my inclination is to say, “What do you need that for? You have a lot of oil.”
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you want total dismantlement, bottom line?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think that I would be open to hearing it, you know? Civilian energy, it’s called. But you know, civilian energy often leads to military wars. And we don’t wanna have them have a nuclear weapon. It’s a very simple deal. I want Iran to be really successful, really great, really fantastic. The only thing they can’t have is a nuclear weapon. If they want to be successful, that’s okay. I want them to be so successful. And you know, the Iranian people are incredible. I just don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon because the world will be destroyed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just to recap, we’re talking about your desire to claim Canada, Greenland. What do you say to people —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You forgot the Panama Canal.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Panama Canal. What do you say to people who say they voted for you because they wanted you to end foreign conflicts, not start new ones?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t see that as conflict. I think that’s good for our country, those things. Look, the Panama Canal was taken over by China, effectively. Now China seems to have left. But the Panama Canal — think of this deal. We built the most expensive object we’ve ever built in the history of our country. That was Mount McKinley, they just took away, I just gave it back the name. But, McKinley made the money, Teddy Roosevelt spent the money. McKinley takes gets very little credit, you know but you know how he made the money? Through tariffs. He was the big tariff president. Okay, but forget that. We built the Panama Canal. It was the most expensive thing. It would be the equivalent, like, almost $2 trillion today. We’ve never spent there — and it was very successful. And Jimmy Carter gave it away for $1.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Panama insists they —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
This is the kind of leadership —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Panama says they do control the canal. But we have a couple more questions left, and I’m getting a little wrap.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Panama said what? Panama said what?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Panama says they still control it. I know you’re saying China. Panama says they still control it.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know, if you would have gone there about 5.2 months ago, every single sign on the Panama Canal, with the exception of about 15% of them, was in Chinese.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. Let me ask you, because we’re nearing the end, just a couple more questions here.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m not complaining. You keep saying to me like I’m rushing —
KRISTEN WELKER:
No, you’re not. And I really appreciate it.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t want to rush you. I don’t want to make you nervous.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you. The Trump organization is selling hats that say, “Trump 2028.”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are you seriously considering a third term, Mr. President, even though it’s prohibited by the Constitution? Or is this about staying politically viable?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I will say this. So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that. But it’s something that, to the best of my knowledge, you’re not allowed to do. I don’t know if that’s constitutional that they’re not allowing you to do it or anything else. But, there are many people selling the 2028 hat. But this is not something I’m looking to do. I’m looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody, ideally a great Republican, a great Republican to carry it forward. But I think we’re going to have four years, and I think four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular.
KRISTEN WELKER:
The Constitution does prohibit it. Have you — some of your allies are pretty serious about this, though, Mr. President. And I’ve spoken to them. They say they are coming up with potential ways, obviously the biggest one would be a constitutional amendment.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
That’s because they like the job I’m doing, and it’s a compliment. It’s really a great compliment.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Has anyone approached you, though, with an actual plan, a way to actually start the process of a constitutional amendment?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, there are ways of doing it. There are ways of doing it. And you know the same thing. And if you look at the vice presidential thing, and you hear different concepts and different other people say, “You can have a write-in vote.” There’s lots of different things. With all of that being said, I want to be a great president. I will have served — hopefully everything will go well. I feel very good. I just did a physical. I took — unlike all other presidents, I took cognitive tests and I aced it. I got 100% correct. And the doctor, one doctor said — there were numerous doctors watching. And he said, “I’ve never seen that before.” Biden didn’t take a cognitive — he couldn’t have gotten the first question right. But I came out great with the physical, both physically and mentally. And I just want to serve, do a great job. I’ll be an eight-year president, I’ll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important, to be honest with you. You know, if you look at President Polk, he was a one-termer and he did some great things, actually. Pretty good president. And I’m not saying you can’t do that. But, there’s something about being a two-term president that was very important to me.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And just to put a button on it, has anyone in an official capacity presented you with, “Sir, here are some ideas by which you could actually get a constitutional amendment?”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, in a capacity of being a big supporter, many people have said different things —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But, I’m not looking at that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You haven’t had official meetings about it?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. And — and just so you understand, four years is a long time. I have almost four years. You know, all of these things that we’ve done, we’ve done more than any president — and even you might admit that. Nobody’s done the extent of — of the things that we’ve done. Nobody’s done this, in essentially a little bit more than three months. As they say, 100 days. I’m looking to do a great job as president, and set the country on the right track. Because if I didn’t win, this country would’ve failed. We would’ve been a failed nation.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You have built a political movement that has transformed the Republican Party —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Greatest in history.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s transformed the country —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
The greatest —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– quite frankly.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– political movement in history, MAGA.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When you —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Make America Great Again.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When you look to the future, Mr. President, do you think the MAGA movement can survive without you as its leader?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yes, I do.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What gives you confidence?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think it’s so strong. And I think we have tremendous people. I think we have a tremendous group of people. We talked about a number of them. You look at Marco, you look at JD Vance, who’s fantastic. You look at — I could name 10, 15, 20 people right now just sitting here. No, I think we have a tremendous party. And you know what I can’t name? I can’t name one Democrat. I mean, I look at the Democrats, they’re in total disarray. They have a new person named Crockett. I watched her speak the other day. She’s definitely a low IQ person. And they said she’s the future of the party. I said, “You have to be kidding.” I don’t know what they’re going to do. And I really believe in a two-party system. I really — because it’s good to be challenged. It’s really good to have a two-party — you know, it’s good. Being challenged is okay. It keeps you sharp. I don’t know what they’re going to do. They have nobody. Bernie’s 87 years old or something. And you know, Biden is the worst thing that ever happened to old people because he was grossly incompetent. And I think maybe for artificial reasons. You know, he had operations and things. So maybe that’s an artificial — but I know people that are unbelievably sharp and they’re older than 87. But I watch Bernie Sanders. He’s a nut job, but he’s still sharp. He’s sharp as — he’s the same guy he was. He hasn’t gone down. But Biden is really — he’s the worst thing to happen to old people.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I know that you are only 100 days in, but as we sit here today, who do you see as your successor, Mr. President?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I — it’s far too early to say that. But you know, I do have a vice president, and typically — and JD’s doing a fantastic job. It —
KRISTEN WELKER:
He would be at the top of the list?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It — it could very well be — I — I don’t want to get involved in that. I think he’s a fantastic, brilliant guy. Marco is great. There’s a lot of them that are great. I — I also see tremendous unity. But certainly you would say that somebody’s the VP, if that person is outstanding, I guess that person would have an advantage. But I think the other people would all stay in unbelievably high positions. But you know, it could be that he’d be challenged by somebody. We have a lot of good people in this party.
Second portion
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. President, thank you for having us here at Mar-a-
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, thank you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– Lago. What does Mar-a-Lago mean to you? It’s a special place.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It is a special — there’s no place like it. You look no matter where — it’s just — there’s nothing like it. And it’s become really the heart of Florida in a way but certainly the heart of Palm Beach, which is an important place. And I just don’t think there’s anything more beautiful in this country than Mar-a-Lago as, you know, as a physical object. It’s been amazing, and it’s been very successful and very special.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s the winter White House.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It is. It was built, you know by —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Or it was built, essentially, for that reason.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– E.F. Hutton and Marjorie Merriweather Post. They were married. He was the biggest man on Wall Street, and she was the richest woman in the world actually. And they built it together. And it just — they picked the best site. They picked the best architects. They had unlimited money, and they built it. Now it’s a — it’s a very special place. And Palm Beach likes me because I saved it. Most of these places were ripped down and 10 or 15 or 20 houses, mansions — beautiful mansions also but much smaller — they were built on those sites. And I was able to save this, which is very important.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and I know that you were just in Michigan.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Right.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You were just talking to folks in Michigan to mark 100 days.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Right.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you anticipate doing more travel across the country? And what do you do to stay in touch with the workers who elected you, sir?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I just went to a great place, University of Alabama, last night. This was some unbelievable evening. And I gave the commencement address, and it’s, like, different. Everybody was so awake, so lively, so — so attractive. And I’m not talking just physically attractive, just there was such an energy in the room. And it was really nice. You know, I won Alabama by many, many, many points. And they asked me to do it. And they put all of their — they had nine different, you know, business and law and this and that, all those different things. They put them all — journalism by the way — they put them all together, and we were in the big — that big arena. And it was tremendous energy. And — and that’s a little bit, you know, to your question, yeah, I think I get out quite a bit. I went to Michigan. I went —
KRISTEN WELKER:
You think you’ll do more in these second 100 days?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think I will. But we’re talking about the great, big, beautiful bill, you know, that we’re trying to get passed. It’ll be the biggest tax cuts in the history of our country, and hopefully it’ll get done. And the Democrats are fighting us. And if it doesn’t get done, it’s going to be a 68% tax increase. So that’s going to be the Democrats. But I think we’re going to have it done. I think the Republicans are going to vote for it. And it’ll be the most consequential bill I think in the history of our country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Leader Thune says he wants to get it done by July 4th.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think that’s possible?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think it is, and I think he’s doing a fantastic job. And Mike Johnson, Speaker, is doing a fantastic job, and they’re both getting together well. There’s great unity in the Republican Party. The Republican Party’s a much different party than it was.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What happens if it comes to your desk, has the tax cuts, but also cuts to Medicaid? Would you veto that?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, we’re not doing that. No, we’re not —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Would you veto that?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I would if they were cutting it, but they’re not cutting it. They’re looking at fraud, waste and abuse. And nobody minds that. If illegal immigrants are in the mix, if people that aren’t supposed to be there, people that are non-citizens are in the mix, nobody minds that. Waste, fraud and abuse. But we’re not cutting Medicaid, we’re not cutting Medicare, and we’re not cutting Social Security.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You also unveiled a budget.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Deep cuts in some social services. What do you say to folks who may look at these cuts and say, “It’s going to impact education. It could impact people who rely on services for the poor?”
PRES DONALD TRUMP:
Well, from what I understand — and first of all, the budget is a very preliminary instrument —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes.
PRES DONALD TRUMP:
— and I think that when it’s all said and done you’re going to see a wonderful budget for everybody, really everybody. I would actually say the middle class probably goes to the fore, and it’s about time. But we took care of the middle class during my — during the original Trump tax cuts we really took care of the middle class. The people with the least amount of money actually were the biggest — and this isn’t just the middle class. The least amount of money, the poorest people, proportionately gained the most. And that’s what we’re looking to do here.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you’re not concerned about it impacting education and other services?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. It depends what education. If you’re talking about Harvard, which has a —
KRISTEN WELKER:
No, no, I’m talking about education —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— $53 billion in the bank because of a lot of things that they’ve been able to do and that the government help them with. That’s different. But, no, not education. We’re bringing education back to the states.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me talk to you about TikTok —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know, that’s a big thing because education coming back to the states is a very big thing. We’re going to bring it back. The United States does not do well with education. We’re number 37, 38, 39 and 40 out of 40. And we’re going to bring it back to the states and we’re going to go to among the top ten I believe.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about TikTok, sir. Would you extend that deadline if there’s still no deal? You already —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I would.
KRISTEN WELKER:
— put one extension — you would?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, I would.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So, you’re going to — you want to see a deal?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’d like to see it done. I have a little sweet spot in my heart because, as you know, I won young people by 36 points. That’s a lot. No Republican ever won young people, and I won it by 36 points, and I focused on TikTok. So perhaps I shouldn’t say this, but I have a little warm spot in my heart for TikTok. TikTok is — it’s very interesting, but it’ll be protected. It’ll be very strongly protected. But if it needs an extension, I would be willing to give it an extension, might not need it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But where are discussions? Is it close to a deal?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well we’re not —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is someone close to —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah. Yeah, we —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— purchasing it?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— actually have a deal. We have a group of purchasers, very substantial people. They’re going to pay a lot of money. It’s a good thing for us. It’s a good thing for China. It’s going to be, I think, very good. But because of the fact that I’ve essentially cut off China right now with the tariffs that are so high that they’re not going to be able to do much business with the United States. But if we make a deal with China I’m sure that’ll be a subject, and it’ll be a very easy subject to solve.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We’re talking about your agenda, your budget bill, your tax bill, and you think about the next big test, which is the midterms. How do you see your role in the midterms?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m going to be very active. I’ve raised a lot of money for congressmen and senators that I think are good — really good people. We have some great Republican congressmen and women and senators that love this country, and they’re not lunatics like some of these Democrats. What they’re doing to the country is incredible. It’s insane. There’s something wrong with them. They suffer a major case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. I mean, it doesn’t — nothing matters to them other than that. Yeah, I’m going to be much involved. The interesting thing is — and nobody can explain why — but when somebody wins the presidency they seem to lose Congress. They seem to lose the House and the Senate or —
KRISTEN WELKER:
How concerned are you about that?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t know why it would be. I think we should do better. But if you look it’s pretty consistent that whoever wins the presidency ends up losing the House, losing the Senate. I think we’re going to turn that around. I think we’re going to turn it around easy. It should be the opposite. If we do a good job, let’s say as president if I do a good job, it should be the opposite. So hopefully we’ll dispel that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, it looks like you’re also looking at the history books.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How concerned are you about losing one or both chambers?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’s a long way away. It’s a long way. You know, we’re in here for a little more than three months. We have a long way to go. I’ve raised a lot of money. We’re having a fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago tonight for exactly that purpose. We want to win the House in bigger numbers. But, you know, we had a one majority three months ago. Now we have seven because we won a few races. I guess you know that. But we won a few races. But we’re up seven now, and we’re up — we have 53 senators. And I think we’re going to be in very good position. I expect to win by a bigger margin than we have now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
If you do lose one chamber, are there areas where you think you could find common ground with Democrats?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, there should be, but they seem to be stone cold. Look —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is there anything —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— the one —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— in your mind though?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— thing I will say about the Democrats, they stick together. They have horrible policy. Men in women’s sports, transgender for everyone, open borders. The craziest policies I’ve ever seen. But regardless of how crazy they are, they stick together. And I respect that. I think it’s a great thing. And I think the Republicans are starting to do that also.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So looking forward, sir, one of the big features of your first administration was the first lady. She had her “Be Best” campaign.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Right.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Will people start to see more of her? Will she come back —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— with her “Be Best” campaign, for example? Can you give us a little —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
— bit of a preview of what we can see?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, as an example, she did a book and she was number one bestseller for a long time, for many, many weeks. The people love her. She’s a very private person, which I respect a lot. She doesn’t have to be out. I know people where they have wives in politics and the wife wants to be in front of the husband all day long, waving to everybody. She’s got great confidence in herself and she doesn’t need that. But when she goes out. We were out, as you know, last weekend. It was an amazing, amazing day. The people love her. They really respect her, and they love her. Yeah, she’ll be very much involved.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And that’s part of why I’m asking you. I mean, can people expect to see her revive her “Be Best” campaign? Can you give —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, she is —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— us a little preview?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it’s still a campaign that’s very important to her, and it’s sort of a cute name, “Be Best.” I said, “That’s a strange name,” but it’s really beautiful and it sort of, you know, means something now that I didn’t understand, lot of people didn’t understand. And she’s done a great job. She’s raised a lot of money. She cares a lot about people, really cares a lot about people —
KRISTEN WELKER:
When you and I talked in December we talked about the fact that in this second administration your family is not there.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, that was —
KRISTEN WELKER:
And they were really some of your closest advisors —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure. Sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What is it like to be there and are they still, I would imagine, your closest advisors?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
They’re with me all the way. But I think they were treated very unfairly. Ivanka worked so hard on getting jobs for people. You know, I wanted to make her the head of — the ambassador to the United Nations. There would be nobody that would be better than her. She said, “Dad, I don’t want to do that. I just want to get” — you know, she worked on getting people jobs. It sounds good in one way, but it doesn’t sound as exciting as other jobs. And she just wanted to do that. And she got hundreds of thousands of jobs for people. It made her so happy. She’s a good person. The way they went after Don and Eric, I said, “Just relax,” because I thought it was unfair. They went after these kids, and they’re really good. And they’re no longer kids, but they’re always going to be my kids.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
They were treated so unfairly.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Barron’s in college now. How is he liking college?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Right.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How’s he doing?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
He’s a great student. He’s doing very well, goes to a great school. But he’s doing really well.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And is there any challenge being in college, having your dad as president of the United States?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, you’ll have to ask him someday that, but we try and make it as normal as possible. There’s nothing normal about it. But he’s a very great guy and wonderful kid.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Your birthday’s coming up.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And there are reports that you’re looking into the possibility of a military —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— parade.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Not for my birthday.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When can you tell — when would it be? What can you tell me?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, my birthday happens to be on Flag Day. So —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, there you go —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— I think they’re talking about Flag Day. But I view it for Flag Day, not necessarily my birthday. Somebody put it together. But no, I think we’re going to do something on June 14th maybe or somewhere around there. But I think June 14th, it’s a very important day. It’s Flag Day, plus we’re going to have different days. You know, if you look at Russia, they celebrate Victory Day.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
If you look at France, I was talking to Prime Minister Macron and he says, “Yes, there’s Victory Day, Victory Day.” And I say, “Victory Day for what?” “World War II.” I said, “Well, we had more to do with winning World War II than any other nation. Why don’t we have a Victory Day?” So we’re going to have a Victory Day for World War I and for World War II.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And will it be a military parade? What can people expect?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And you have breaking news because nobody knows this. We’re going to have Victory Day for World War I and for World War II. Well, it’s going to start off by saying, “It’s Victory Day,” because, you know, when other nations, some of which weren’t even very successful in the war, they have Victory Days and the United States doesn’t. And we’re the one that won those wars with the help of others, with the help of others. But we’re going to have a Victory Day for I and II.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But one day, right? Both on one day?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Maybe not because —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Oh, really? More than one day?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, they took place on very different days, you know. They’re about six months apart. So I think you can have two days. This doesn’t mean we’re going to go and not work and have a national holiday and all of that because we don’t have many of those days left. You know, eventually our country will become all national holidays. But we’re going to acknowledge by having days for World War I victory and World War II victory —
KRISTEN WELKER:
And just paint a picture for me. What will those parades look like? Will it be military parades?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You mean, like, on Flag Day?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We’re going to have a big, beautiful parade.
KRISTEN WELKER:
A military parade?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We’re going to celebrate our military. We have the greatest military in the world —
KRISTEN WELKER:
What’s the price tag? Do you know?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Peanuts compared to the value of doing it. We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we’re going to celebrate it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And, sir, finally, you’ve talked about the fact that you’re putting some of your own touches on the White House —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Anything that you can share about what you may be planning for the White House?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What’s going to look different? I know you are thinking about making the Rose Garden look a little bit different. Anything you can share?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, the problem with the Rose Garden is the grass is always soaking wet and you can’t use it for news conferences. You’re supposed to have news conferences, meetings, all this in the Rose Garden. So we’re going to put a beautiful stone surface down so that people — for instance, we had something the other day and it actually didn’t rain for three or four days and the women were still getting stuck in the grass. And we want to put it to work. So we’re going to do something in terms of a hard surface. It’ll look beautiful, you know —
KRISTEN WELKER:
And where will it be specifically?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Where the grass is, where there’s —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Where the grass is —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— grass is. There’s grass in the middle. The roses stay. Everything stays just the way it was, including the limestone paths and everything else. But we had the prime minister of India here and they had a lot of press, and the women were walking out with their shoes full of mud. So we can’t have that. The other thing — and you see what I’ve done to the Oval Office and that continues, 24-carat gold. It’s beautiful. And we have really gotten — because I know that people can be fresh and nasty, you know, but we’ve been getting rave reviews. It was not taken care of the way it should. Now, I have an advantage. I was a really good real estate developer so I know how to get things done. I know how to build it. You’ll see it in a minute when you look at the ballroom, which I built at Mar-a-Lago.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Could anything —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But the other thing, and the big thing, is going to be for 50 years they’ve wanted to build a ballroom at the White House. And they’ve tried, but the presidents were not real estate people. They had no clue. All you have to do is look at President Obama and look at his museum or library, whatever they call it, in Chicago. It’s a catastrophe. It’s way over-budget. Maybe it comes to an end. I don’t know what’s going on. But it’s a disaster because — and it’s not his fault. He’s not a real estate person. He doesn’t know how to build. I do really well. And what we’re going to do, you’re going to see the most beautiful ballroom in the world right now when you take a look.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But we are going to make and build a ballroom, which they’ve wanted for probably a hundred years at the White House. And it’ll be a world-class, beautiful ballroom, and they’ll use the meeting rooms already existing. And we’re going to get that started over the next few months, and it’s going to be beautiful. And it’ll be done properly, and I will fund it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Will you bring — you will fund it?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah. Yeah, I’m not going to ask the government for money. I’ll fund it, and I’m sure we’ll have some donations to it. But it’s not an inexpensive thing. It’ll cost a lot of money.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Where will it be?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’ll be near the — I guess you would say the East Wing, near the East Wing, a little complicated to explain without a drawing. But we have three or four different concepts, and we’re working with great architects, with great planners. And it will be something really beautiful, top of the line.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Finally, sir —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know, when they have a party for, like, when the head of China comes in —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— or the head of anybody, you know, head of anything, they have a party where they have a tent 200 yards away, where people have to walk in the rain to get to a tent. And that’s not for us. That’s not for the United States of America.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I know you — you’re only 100 days into this second term, but have you thought about what you want your legacy to be?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I want my legacy to be very much as the name of MAGA and what it represents. It’s called “Make America Great Again.” We were a great country for a period of time, and the last four years have been a disaster for the reputation of this country and for the fact of the country. It’s been a disaster. We’re going to make America great again. That’s all I want to do. I want to make it greater than ever before.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you, Mr. President.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Thank you very much.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Appreciate it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you see dissent as an essential part of democracy?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’s a part of democracy. It is. You’re always going to have dissent —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is it an important part of democracy?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You’re always going to have — Kristen, you’re always going to have dissent. There’s nothing you’re going to do about that. Am I going to get 100% unified? It would be a strange place. I can’t even imagine it where 100%. Look. You have people that are good people. They’re very smart people. And they honestly believe we should have open borders and the entire world should be allowed to pour into our country. I think it’s a 95/5 issue, but they believe it. They’re not even bad people. Some of them are bad. You have people that honestly believe that men should be allowed to play in women’s sports. Some of these people I really, actually I don’t know any. I haven’t been able to find any, but they exist. They say it’s an 80/20 issue. I don’t believe that. I think it’s a 97 to three issue.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think people should have the right to criticize you without fear of reprisal?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Absolutely. Yeah, I do. That I do.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And how do you square that —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And I think that happens.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How do you square that with the fact that you have passed these executive orders asking the attorney general to look into some of the people who’ve criticized you, who’ve been harshest against you?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I have been investigated more than any person in the history of the United States of America. I’ve been investigated more than the late great, as they say at my rallies, Alphonse Capone. Alphonse Capone was a nasty man. He was a — the highest level gangster. And I have been investigated more than Al Capone, more than anybody. These people are evil people. And I won. And I’ll tell you what. All I want to happen is for the Department of Justice and the FBI. Pam is great and Kash is great. I think they’re two great people. But they’re their own people. They want to do a fantastic job. And all I want to do and all I want to ask for is that they be allowed to do their job. I’m not telling them to do anything. And I believe I have the right to do it. I’m, in theory, the top law enforcement officer as the president. We went over this once before, and it turned out I was right. But I’m not looking to use that. We have two great people, and we have many, many incredible people under them. And I just want them to do their job and do it well.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about something I don’t think you’ve been asked much about, which is you’ve branded your own cryptocurrency. The coin’s value actually surged recently after you announced that top holders would be invited to have dinner —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t even know that. What did it surge to —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— that people wanted to — what did it surge to?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah. What’s it worth? You might as well tell me, because I have no idea.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, it surged, I will find it, hold on one second, 5.2 or 58%, so 58%.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
To what number?
KRISTEN WELKER:
That’s not bad, 14.32.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
What, billion?
KRISTEN WELKER:
For — no, dollars per cryptocurrency.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Billion dollars?
KRISTEN WELKER:
No.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
What’s the number? I mean, what is the amount?
KRISTEN WELKER:
The meme coin’s value hit a peak of 75.35 on January 19.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, that doesn’t mean anything.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And that’s before your inauguration, and then it surged.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Look. I’m in favor of crypto.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. But let me just ask you —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know what I’m in favor of it —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– what do you say to those who argue that when they hear that, they worry you’re profiting from the presidency?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m not profiting from anything. All I’m doing is, I started this long before the election. I want crypto. I think crypto’s important because if we don’t do it, China’s going to. And it’s new, it’s very popular, it’s very hot. If you look at the market, when the market went down, that stayed much stronger than other aspects of the market. But I want crypto because a lot of people, you know millions of people want it. I don’t know if you know that Biden went after it violently, and then before the election, he changed his tune entirely. His head of the SEC, everybody changed their tune. You know why? Because there were hundreds of millions of people that are participating in crypto, and they wanted to get their votes. But it didn’t work–
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you’re not profiting off of the cryptocurrency at all?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I haven’t even looked.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Has your family?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But I’ll tell you what. Look, if I own stock in something and I do a good job, and the stock market goes up, I guess I’m profiting. But who really profits is somebody like Nancy Pelosi, who uses inside information. She worked for $175,000 a year, and that’s at the high end. And she’s worth $150, $200 million? Okay? You ought to look at Nancy Pelosi and you ought to look at some of these politicians that are stone cold crooks. I was very wealthy when I came in. Being president probably cost me money if you really look. In fact, I do something that no other president has done, they think maybe George Washington has done. I contribute my entire salary to the government, back to the government. And I’m doing it again.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So will you contribute anything you earn from crypto back to the government if that happens?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I never thought of that. I mean, should I contribute all of my real estate that I’ve owned for many years if it goes up a little bit because I’m president and doing a good job? I don’t think so.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But I’ve done something that surprisingly they say nobody else has done, no other president has done. I give, and it’s a substantial salary. It’s a half a million dollars a year or $550,000 a year, four years, couple of million dollars. I gave it to the government last time. I never got a story saying I gave it. Nobody cared if I gave it. I guarantee if I didn’t give it, there’d be a big story. But no other president, they say with the possible exception of George Washington, and they haven’t been able to find those records. And we’ve had wealthy presidents before, but no other president has contributed his salary. And they told me before this that you will probably be asking me whether or not I’m going to contribute my salary again. But you haven’t asked that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are you going to?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You are? Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yes. I am.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Well, I appreciate — we just made news there. Let’s talk about foreign policy, sir. You just signed a minerals deal with Ukraine. It’s a sign, it seems, that the United States is invested in Ukraine’s future. The secretary of state told me this is a very critical week. Are you any closer to reaching a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I hope so.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How would you characterize it?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I do believe we’re closer with one party, and maybe not as close with the other. But we’ll have to see. I’d like to not say which one we’re closer to. But we did do a deal for the American people that was good. We were able to get rare earth, you know? The Europeans are getting paid back. They have a loan. We didn’t — Biden just gave them $350 billion. He has no idea where the money is, what happened. And at least we’ll, in one form or another, get our — yeah, I don’t feel so foolish. And remember this, this is Biden’s war. This was a war that was never going to happen if I were president. This is a horrible, horrible war. And I get to see shots of soldiers through, you know, satellite that are so, just so, terrible. 5,000 soldiers are being, look 5,000 soldiers a week on average are dying. They’re not American soldiers. But I want to solve the problem. They’re Russian soldiers, and they’re Ukrainian soldiers. And if I can save 5,000 souls, I just love doing it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How long do you give both countries before you’re going to walk away?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, there will be a time when I will say, “Okay, keep going. Keep being stupid and keep fighting.”
KRISTEN WELKER:
When does that come? Are you close to it?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sometimes I get close to it, and then positive things happen, okay? So I hope it gets done.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Your close ally, Senator Lindsey Graham, has a sanctions bill against Russia. If you get to that point, Mr. President, where you’re prepared to walk away, will you support — will you sign that sanctions bill?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it depends on whether or not Russia is behaving toward coming to a peace. We want a peace deal. We want Russia and Ukraine to agree to a deal. We think we’re fairly close, and we’re going to save a lot of people from being killed. Going to save a lot of money, too. Because we’re spending money like — you know, Europe is spending a third of the money that we’re spending. And it’s more important for Europe than it is for us. Biden had no control. He just sent money over there willy-nilly, nobody had any idea what was happening, why they were doing it, why they were sending it. And it was massive amounts of money.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you think you’re close to a deal? What will Russia have to give up? Because Ukraine, there’s been discussions they will have to give up some of the land that Russia’s illegally claimed.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine. Because that’s what they want.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All of Ukraine? Meaning they wouldn’t keep any of the land that they have claimed?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, no. Russia would have to give up all of Ukraine. Because what Russia wants is all of Ukraine. And if I didn’t get involved, they would be fighting right now for all of Ukraine. Russia doesn’t want the strip that they have now; Russia wants all of Ukraine. And if it weren’t me, they would keep going. Do you know that the European Union leaders have asked me to call Putin so many times? Because he doesn’t return their phone call.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You, you, posted on social media he might be “tapping” you along.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Might be.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Did you misread him–
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But you might be tapping me along, too, when you tell me how nice an interview this is going to be. So you know, I’m used to being tapped along.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Did you in any way misread Vladimir Putin?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Did I what?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Misread him? Now that you’re saying that.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No, I’ll tell you about in a month from now, or two weeks from now. I have no idea. I can tell you this, he’s — his ambition was stopped to a large extent when he saw that it was me that was now leading the charge. Because he wasn’t dealing with anybody in Europe, he wasn’t calling them back. Do you know that I asked him, I said, “Did Biden ever call you in three years? Did Biden ever call?” He said, “He never called.” You know, Biden didn’t call him one time? And all these thousands of soldiers, hundreds, millions of soldiers are dying, and people, not only soldiers. People dying in the cities, and the towns, and the whole heritage of that country is being blown apart. I mean, the country’s heritage is being blown apart. You know the steeples, those beautiful spires that you see, you know the most beautiful in the world? Almost 95% of them are laying in smithereens, all broken up and, so sad, laying all over the ground because they were shot. It’s really a bad situation. And he didn’t get one phone call from Biden. The war would’ve never started. And by the way, for four years it didn’t start. I was there for four years, it was the apple of his eye. This was the apple of Putin’s eye. There was no chance he would have gone in.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What’s the red line for you? At what point do you say, “That’s it, we’re walking away?”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, you’ll know. I mean, there will be a time when I may say that. And if I do —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you’re not there?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– there may be something. I can’t — maybe it’s not possible to do. There’s tremendous hatred, just so you understand. Kristen, we’re talking tremendous hatred between these two men and between, you know, some of the soldiers, frankly. Between the generals. They’ve been fighting hard for three years. I think we have a very good chance of doing it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Very quickly, if you do walk away, would that mean that you would pull military and intelligence sharing?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t want to say that now. It’s too early to say that. I don’t want to get into that argument.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, let’s move onto Canada. You have long talked about making Canada the 51st state. There’s obviously a new prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney, who you spoke to —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Correct.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– after his victory. He says that you didn’t talk to him in that call about making Canada a 51st state.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. He called me, he was very nice, and I congratulated him. He had a victory. It’s a very close victory. You know, there’s no majority or anything, so that’s going to make things a little bit difficult, I think, for him to run. But he’d nevertheless had a victory. And he’s a very nice man, I think.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you plan to talk to him about making Canada a 51st state?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
He wants to come and see me. He’s going to come this week or next week.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So will you talk to him about making Canada a 51st state, annexing Canada?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’ll always talk about that. You know why? We subsidize Canada to the tune of $200 billion a year. We don’t need their cars. In fact, we don’t want their cars. We don’t need their energy. We don’t even want their energy. We have more than they do. We don’t want their lumber. We have great lumber. All I have to do is free it up from the environmental lunatics. We don’t need anything that they have. We’re giving them — I asked, I asked Mr. Trudeau — who I call Governor Trudeau, not Prime Minister, Governor — I said, “Governor Trudeau, could I ask you one question? Why are we giving you $200 billion? Why are we subsidizing Canada?” If Canada was a state it wouldn’t cost us. It would be great. It would be such a great — it would be a cherished state. And, if you look at our map, if you look at the geography — I’m a real estate guy at heart. When I look down at that without that artificial line that was drawn with a ruler many years ago — was just an artificial line, goes straight across. You don’t even realize. What a beautiful country it would be. It would be great. But, I don’t think the American public wants me to pay $200 billion a year to subsidize Canada. Again, remember this, we don’t need their cars, we don’t need their lumber, we don’t need their energy. We don’t need anything. We do very little business with Canada. They do all of their business practically with us. They need us. We don’t need them.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You and I talked, and I asked you if you would rule out military force to take Greenland. And you said, no, you don’t rule out anything. Would you rule out military force to take Canada?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I think we’re not going to ever get to that point. It could happen. Something could happen with Greenland. I’ll be honest, we need that for national and international security. But I think —
KRISTEN WELKER:
But not with Canada?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– it’s highly unlikely. I don’t see it with Canada. I just don’t see it, I have to be honest with you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, but you don’t rule it out for Greenland?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And by the way, Canada, they spend less money on military than practically any nation in the world. They pay NATO less than any nation. They think we are subsidizing, they think we are going to protect them, and really, we are. But the truth is, they don’t carry their full share, and it’s unfair to the United States and our taxpayers.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But you are not ruling out military force to take Greenland one day?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t rule it out. I don’t say I’m going to do it, but I don’t rule out anything. No, not there. We need Greenland very badly. Greenland is a very small amount of people, which we’ll take care of, and we’ll cherish them, and all of that. But we need that for international security. Do you know, we have Russian boats and we have Chinese boats, gun ships all over the place — aircraft carriers, gun ships — going up and down the coast of Greenland. We need that to be protected. Internationally we need it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you are willing to send U.S. troops to claim a sovereign territory?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I didn’t say that. You asked me a question, “Would you, is there a circumstance?” It could happen. I doubt it will, but it certainly could happen with respect to Greenland.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let me ask you about Iran. Your administration has had conversations with Iran. Is the goal of these talks limiting Iran’s nuclear program or total dismantlement?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Total dismantlement.
KRISTEN WELKER:
That’s all you’ll accept?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, that’s all I’d accept. Now, there’s a new theory going out there that Iran would be allowed to have civilian — meaning to make electricity and to — but I say, you know, they have so much oil, what do they need it for? But you know, I’ve seen it with other states, where they’re looking to do something and they have a lot of oil. Iran has tremendous energy. You know I put sanctions, if you know that, I put pretty strong sanctions on two days ago, on the oil. The sad part is that if Biden didn’t get involved, if we had a competent president, you would’ve never had the attack on Israel. October 7th would’ve never taken place. Hamas would’ve had no money. Because Iran was broke. And now in a period of four years, during the Biden administration, they became very rich. They have over $300 million cash in the bank. And they had no money. They were ready to make a deal with me, and it’s very sad. Because of this rigged election they didn’t do it. Just another thing you can mark down to a bad election.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s interesting what you’re saying, though. Because Secretary Rubio has said that he would accept, or the idea is that there is an openness to accepting a peaceful, civil nuclear program.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well that’s what people — I didn’t say anything contradictory. I said that people are talking about that. And this is something that’s really pretty new in the dialogue. And I’d have to be, you know, my inclination is to say, “What do you need that for? You have a lot of oil.”
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you want total dismantlement, bottom line?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think that I would be open to hearing it, you know? Civilian energy, it’s called. But you know, civilian energy often leads to military wars. And we don’t wanna have them have a nuclear weapon. It’s a very simple deal. I want Iran to be really successful, really great, really fantastic. The only thing they can’t have is a nuclear weapon. If they want to be successful, that’s okay. I want them to be so successful. And you know, the Iranian people are incredible. I just don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon because the world will be destroyed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just to recap, we’re talking about your desire to claim Canada, Greenland. What do you say to people —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You forgot the Panama Canal.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Panama Canal. What do you say to people who say they voted for you because they wanted you to end foreign conflicts, not start new ones?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t see that as conflict. I think that’s good for our country, those things. Look, the Panama Canal was taken over by China, effectively. Now China seems to have left. But the Panama Canal — think of this deal. We built the most expensive object we’ve ever built in the history of our country. That was Mount McKinley, they just took away, I just gave it back the name. But, McKinley made the money, Teddy Roosevelt spent the money. McKinley takes gets very little credit, you know but you know how he made the money? Through tariffs. He was the big tariff president. Okay, but forget that. We built the Panama Canal. It was the most expensive thing. It would be the equivalent, like, almost $2 trillion today. We’ve never spent there — and it was very successful. And Jimmy Carter gave it away for $1.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Panama insists they —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
This is the kind of leadership —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Panama says they do control the canal. But we have a couple more questions left, and I’m getting a little wrap.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Panama said what? Panama said what?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Panama says they still control it. I know you’re saying China. Panama says they still control it.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know, if you would have gone there about 5.2 months ago, every single sign on the Panama Canal, with the exception of about 15% of them, was in Chinese.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah. Let me ask you, because we’re nearing the end, just a couple more questions here.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m not complaining. You keep saying to me like I’m rushing —
KRISTEN WELKER:
No, you’re not. And I really appreciate it.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t want to rush you. I don’t want to make you nervous.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you. The Trump organization is selling hats that say, “Trump 2028.”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are you seriously considering a third term, Mr. President, even though it’s prohibited by the Constitution? Or is this about staying politically viable?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I will say this. So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that. But it’s something that, to the best of my knowledge, you’re not allowed to do. I don’t know if that’s constitutional that they’re not allowing you to do it or anything else. But, there are many people selling the 2028 hat. But this is not something I’m looking to do. I’m looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody, ideally a great Republican, a great Republican to carry it forward. But I think we’re going to have four years, and I think four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular.
KRISTEN WELKER:
The Constitution does prohibit it. Have you — some of your allies are pretty serious about this, though, Mr. President. And I’ve spoken to them. They say they are coming up with potential ways, obviously the biggest one would be a constitutional amendment.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
That’s because they like the job I’m doing, and it’s a compliment. It’s really a great compliment.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Has anyone approached you, though, with an actual plan, a way to actually start the process of a constitutional amendment?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, there are ways of doing it. There are ways of doing it. And you know the same thing. And if you look at the vice presidential thing, and you hear different concepts and different other people say, “You can have a write-in vote.” There’s lots of different things. With all of that being said, I want to be a great president. I will have served — hopefully everything will go well. I feel very good. I just did a physical. I took — unlike all other presidents, I took cognitive tests and I aced it. I got 100% correct. And the doctor, one doctor said — there were numerous doctors watching. And he said, “I’ve never seen that before.” Biden didn’t take a cognitive — he couldn’t have gotten the first question right. But I came out great with the physical, both physically and mentally. And I just want to serve, do a great job. I’ll be an eight-year president, I’ll be a two-term president. I always thought that was very important, to be honest with you. You know, if you look at President Polk, he was a one-termer and he did some great things, actually. Pretty good president. And I’m not saying you can’t do that. But, there’s something about being a two-term president that was very important to me.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And just to put a button on it, has anyone in an official capacity presented you with, “Sir, here are some ideas by which you could actually get a constitutional amendment?”
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, in a capacity of being a big supporter, many people have said different things —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But, I’m not looking at that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You haven’t had official meetings about it?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. And — and just so you understand, four years is a long time. I have almost four years. You know, all of these things that we’ve done, we’ve done more than any president — and even you might admit that. Nobody’s done the extent of — of the things that we’ve done. Nobody’s done this, in essentially a little bit more than three months. As they say, 100 days. I’m looking to do a great job as president, and set the country on the right track. Because if I didn’t win, this country would’ve failed. We would’ve been a failed nation.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You have built a political movement that has transformed the Republican Party —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Greatest in history.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s transformed the country —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
The greatest —
KRISTEN WELKER:
– quite frankly.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– political movement in history, MAGA.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When you —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Make America Great Again.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When you look to the future, Mr. President, do you think the MAGA movement can survive without you as its leader?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yes, I do.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What gives you confidence?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think it’s so strong. And I think we have tremendous people. I think we have a tremendous group of people. We talked about a number of them. You look at Marco, you look at JD Vance, who’s fantastic. You look at — I could name 10, 15, 20 people right now just sitting here. No, I think we have a tremendous party. And you know what I can’t name? I can’t name one Democrat. I mean, I look at the Democrats, they’re in total disarray. They have a new person named Crockett. I watched her speak the other day. She’s definitely a low IQ person. And they said she’s the future of the party. I said, “You have to be kidding.” I don’t know what they’re going to do. And I really believe in a two-party system. I really — because it’s good to be challenged. It’s really good to have a two-party — you know, it’s good. Being challenged is okay. It keeps you sharp. I don’t know what they’re going to do. They have nobody. Bernie’s 87 years old or something. And you know, Biden is the worst thing that ever happened to old people because he was grossly incompetent. And I think maybe for artificial reasons. You know, he had operations and things. So maybe that’s an artificial — but I know people that are unbelievably sharp and they’re older than 87. But I watch Bernie Sanders. He’s a nut job, but he’s still sharp. He’s sharp as — he’s the same guy he was. He hasn’t gone down. But Biden is really — he’s the worst thing to happen to old people.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I know that you are only 100 days in, but as we sit here today, who do you see as your successor, Mr. President?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I — it’s far too early to say that. But you know, I do have a vice president, and typically — and JD’s doing a fantastic job. It —
KRISTEN WELKER:
He would be at the top of the list?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It — it could very well be — I — I don’t want to get involved in that. I think he’s a fantastic, brilliant guy. Marco is great. There’s a lot of them that are great. I — I also see tremendous unity. But certainly you would say that somebody’s the VP, if that person is outstanding, I guess that person would have an advantage. But I think the other people would all stay in unbelievably high positions. But you know, it could be that he’d be challenged by somebody. We have a lot of good people in this party.
Second portion
KRISTEN WELKER:
Mr. President, thank you for having us here at Mar-a-
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, thank you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– Lago. What does Mar-a-Lago mean to you? It’s a special place.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It is a special — there’s no place like it. You look no matter where — it’s just — there’s nothing like it. And it’s become really the heart of Florida in a way but certainly the heart of Palm Beach, which is an important place. And I just don’t think there’s anything more beautiful in this country than Mar-a-Lago as, you know, as a physical object. It’s been amazing, and it’s been very successful and very special.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s the winter White House.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It is. It was built, you know by —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Or it was built, essentially, for that reason.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
– E.F. Hutton and Marjorie Merriweather Post. They were married. He was the biggest man on Wall Street, and she was the richest woman in the world actually. And they built it together. And it just — they picked the best site. They picked the best architects. They had unlimited money, and they built it. Now it’s a — it’s a very special place. And Palm Beach likes me because I saved it. Most of these places were ripped down and 10 or 15 or 20 houses, mansions — beautiful mansions also but much smaller — they were built on those sites. And I was able to save this, which is very important.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, and I know that you were just in Michigan.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Right.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You were just talking to folks in Michigan to mark 100 days.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Right.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you anticipate doing more travel across the country? And what do you do to stay in touch with the workers who elected you, sir?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, I just went to a great place, University of Alabama, last night. This was some unbelievable evening. And I gave the commencement address, and it’s, like, different. Everybody was so awake, so lively, so — so attractive. And I’m not talking just physically attractive, just there was such an energy in the room. And it was really nice. You know, I won Alabama by many, many, many points. And they asked me to do it. And they put all of their — they had nine different, you know, business and law and this and that, all those different things. They put them all — journalism by the way — they put them all together, and we were in the big — that big arena. And it was tremendous energy. And — and that’s a little bit, you know, to your question, yeah, I think I get out quite a bit. I went to Michigan. I went —
KRISTEN WELKER:
You think you’ll do more in these second 100 days?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think I will. But we’re talking about the great, big, beautiful bill, you know, that we’re trying to get passed. It’ll be the biggest tax cuts in the history of our country, and hopefully it’ll get done. And the Democrats are fighting us. And if it doesn’t get done, it’s going to be a 68% tax increase. So that’s going to be the Democrats. But I think we’re going to have it done. I think the Republicans are going to vote for it. And it’ll be the most consequential bill I think in the history of our country.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Leader Thune says he wants to get it done by July 4th.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think that’s possible?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I think it is, and I think he’s doing a fantastic job. And Mike Johnson, Speaker, is doing a fantastic job, and they’re both getting together well. There’s great unity in the Republican Party. The Republican Party’s a much different party than it was.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What happens if it comes to your desk, has the tax cuts, but also cuts to Medicaid? Would you veto that?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, we’re not doing that. No, we’re not —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Would you veto that?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I would if they were cutting it, but they’re not cutting it. They’re looking at fraud, waste and abuse. And nobody minds that. If illegal immigrants are in the mix, if people that aren’t supposed to be there, people that are non-citizens are in the mix, nobody minds that. Waste, fraud and abuse. But we’re not cutting Medicaid, we’re not cutting Medicare, and we’re not cutting Social Security.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You also unveiled a budget.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Deep cuts in some social services. What do you say to folks who may look at these cuts and say, “It’s going to impact education. It could impact people who rely on services for the poor?”
PRES DONALD TRUMP:
Well, from what I understand — and first of all, the budget is a very preliminary instrument —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes.
PRES DONALD TRUMP:
— and I think that when it’s all said and done you’re going to see a wonderful budget for everybody, really everybody. I would actually say the middle class probably goes to the fore, and it’s about time. But we took care of the middle class during my — during the original Trump tax cuts we really took care of the middle class. The people with the least amount of money actually were the biggest — and this isn’t just the middle class. The least amount of money, the poorest people, proportionately gained the most. And that’s what we’re looking to do here.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So you’re not concerned about it impacting education and other services?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
No. It depends what education. If you’re talking about Harvard, which has a —
KRISTEN WELKER:
No, no, I’m talking about education —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— $53 billion in the bank because of a lot of things that they’ve been able to do and that the government help them with. That’s different. But, no, not education. We’re bringing education back to the states.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me talk to you about TikTok —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know, that’s a big thing because education coming back to the states is a very big thing. We’re going to bring it back. The United States does not do well with education. We’re number 37, 38, 39 and 40 out of 40. And we’re going to bring it back to the states and we’re going to go to among the top ten I believe.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you about TikTok, sir. Would you extend that deadline if there’s still no deal? You already —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I would.
KRISTEN WELKER:
— put one extension — you would?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, I would.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So, you’re going to — you want to see a deal?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’d like to see it done. I have a little sweet spot in my heart because, as you know, I won young people by 36 points. That’s a lot. No Republican ever won young people, and I won it by 36 points, and I focused on TikTok. So perhaps I shouldn’t say this, but I have a little warm spot in my heart for TikTok. TikTok is — it’s very interesting, but it’ll be protected. It’ll be very strongly protected. But if it needs an extension, I would be willing to give it an extension, might not need it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But where are discussions? Is it close to a deal?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well we’re not —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is someone close to —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah. Yeah, we —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— purchasing it?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— actually have a deal. We have a group of purchasers, very substantial people. They’re going to pay a lot of money. It’s a good thing for us. It’s a good thing for China. It’s going to be, I think, very good. But because of the fact that I’ve essentially cut off China right now with the tariffs that are so high that they’re not going to be able to do much business with the United States. But if we make a deal with China I’m sure that’ll be a subject, and it’ll be a very easy subject to solve.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We’re talking about your agenda, your budget bill, your tax bill, and you think about the next big test, which is the midterms. How do you see your role in the midterms?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I’m going to be very active. I’ve raised a lot of money for congressmen and senators that I think are good — really good people. We have some great Republican congressmen and women and senators that love this country, and they’re not lunatics like some of these Democrats. What they’re doing to the country is incredible. It’s insane. There’s something wrong with them. They suffer a major case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. I mean, it doesn’t — nothing matters to them other than that. Yeah, I’m going to be much involved. The interesting thing is — and nobody can explain why — but when somebody wins the presidency they seem to lose Congress. They seem to lose the House and the Senate or —
KRISTEN WELKER:
How concerned are you about that?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I don’t know why it would be. I think we should do better. But if you look it’s pretty consistent that whoever wins the presidency ends up losing the House, losing the Senate. I think we’re going to turn that around. I think we’re going to turn it around easy. It should be the opposite. If we do a good job, let’s say as president if I do a good job, it should be the opposite. So hopefully we’ll dispel that.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, it looks like you’re also looking at the history books.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How concerned are you about losing one or both chambers?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’s a long way away. It’s a long way. You know, we’re in here for a little more than three months. We have a long way to go. I’ve raised a lot of money. We’re having a fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago tonight for exactly that purpose. We want to win the House in bigger numbers. But, you know, we had a one majority three months ago. Now we have seven because we won a few races. I guess you know that. But we won a few races. But we’re up seven now, and we’re up — we have 53 senators. And I think we’re going to be in very good position. I expect to win by a bigger margin than we have now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
If you do lose one chamber, are there areas where you think you could find common ground with Democrats?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, there should be, but they seem to be stone cold. Look —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is there anything —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— the one —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— in your mind though?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— thing I will say about the Democrats, they stick together. They have horrible policy. Men in women’s sports, transgender for everyone, open borders. The craziest policies I’ve ever seen. But regardless of how crazy they are, they stick together. And I respect that. I think it’s a great thing. And I think the Republicans are starting to do that also.
KRISTEN WELKER:
So looking forward, sir, one of the big features of your first administration was the first lady. She had her “Be Best” campaign.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Right.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Will people start to see more of her? Will she come back —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— with her “Be Best” campaign, for example? Can you give us a little —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
— bit of a preview of what we can see?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, as an example, she did a book and she was number one bestseller for a long time, for many, many weeks. The people love her. She’s a very private person, which I respect a lot. She doesn’t have to be out. I know people where they have wives in politics and the wife wants to be in front of the husband all day long, waving to everybody. She’s got great confidence in herself and she doesn’t need that. But when she goes out. We were out, as you know, last weekend. It was an amazing, amazing day. The people love her. They really respect her, and they love her. Yeah, she’ll be very much involved.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And that’s part of why I’m asking you. I mean, can people expect to see her revive her “Be Best” campaign? Can you give —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, she is —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— us a little preview?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, it’s still a campaign that’s very important to her, and it’s sort of a cute name, “Be Best.” I said, “That’s a strange name,” but it’s really beautiful and it sort of, you know, means something now that I didn’t understand, lot of people didn’t understand. And she’s done a great job. She’s raised a lot of money. She cares a lot about people, really cares a lot about people —
KRISTEN WELKER:
When you and I talked in December we talked about the fact that in this second administration your family is not there.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, that was —
KRISTEN WELKER:
And they were really some of your closest advisors —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure. Sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What is it like to be there and are they still, I would imagine, your closest advisors?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
They’re with me all the way. But I think they were treated very unfairly. Ivanka worked so hard on getting jobs for people. You know, I wanted to make her the head of — the ambassador to the United Nations. There would be nobody that would be better than her. She said, “Dad, I don’t want to do that. I just want to get” — you know, she worked on getting people jobs. It sounds good in one way, but it doesn’t sound as exciting as other jobs. And she just wanted to do that. And she got hundreds of thousands of jobs for people. It made her so happy. She’s a good person. The way they went after Don and Eric, I said, “Just relax,” because I thought it was unfair. They went after these kids, and they’re really good. And they’re no longer kids, but they’re always going to be my kids.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
They were treated so unfairly.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Barron’s in college now. How is he liking college?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Right.
KRISTEN WELKER:
How’s he doing?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
He’s a great student. He’s doing very well, goes to a great school. But he’s doing really well.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And is there any challenge being in college, having your dad as president of the United States?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, you’ll have to ask him someday that, but we try and make it as normal as possible. There’s nothing normal about it. But he’s a very great guy and wonderful kid.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Your birthday’s coming up.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And there are reports that you’re looking into the possibility of a military —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— parade.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Not for my birthday.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When can you tell — when would it be? What can you tell me?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, my birthday happens to be on Flag Day. So —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, there you go —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— I think they’re talking about Flag Day. But I view it for Flag Day, not necessarily my birthday. Somebody put it together. But no, I think we’re going to do something on June 14th maybe or somewhere around there. But I think June 14th, it’s a very important day. It’s Flag Day, plus we’re going to have different days. You know, if you look at Russia, they celebrate Victory Day.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
If you look at France, I was talking to Prime Minister Macron and he says, “Yes, there’s Victory Day, Victory Day.” And I say, “Victory Day for what?” “World War II.” I said, “Well, we had more to do with winning World War II than any other nation. Why don’t we have a Victory Day?” So we’re going to have a Victory Day for World War I and for World War II.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And will it be a military parade? What can people expect?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
And you have breaking news because nobody knows this. We’re going to have Victory Day for World War I and for World War II. Well, it’s going to start off by saying, “It’s Victory Day,” because, you know, when other nations, some of which weren’t even very successful in the war, they have Victory Days and the United States doesn’t. And we’re the one that won those wars with the help of others, with the help of others. But we’re going to have a Victory Day for I and II.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But one day, right? Both on one day?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Maybe not because —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Oh, really? More than one day?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, they took place on very different days, you know. They’re about six months apart. So I think you can have two days. This doesn’t mean we’re going to go and not work and have a national holiday and all of that because we don’t have many of those days left. You know, eventually our country will become all national holidays. But we’re going to acknowledge by having days for World War I victory and World War II victory —
KRISTEN WELKER:
And just paint a picture for me. What will those parades look like? Will it be military parades?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You mean, like, on Flag Day?
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We’re going to have a big, beautiful parade.
KRISTEN WELKER:
A military parade?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah, sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We’re going to celebrate our military. We have the greatest military in the world —
KRISTEN WELKER:
What’s the price tag? Do you know?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Peanuts compared to the value of doing it. We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we’re going to celebrate it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And, sir, finally, you’ve talked about the fact that you’re putting some of your own touches on the White House —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Anything that you can share about what you may be planning for the White House?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Sure.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What’s going to look different? I know you are thinking about making the Rose Garden look a little bit different. Anything you can share?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Well, the problem with the Rose Garden is the grass is always soaking wet and you can’t use it for news conferences. You’re supposed to have news conferences, meetings, all this in the Rose Garden. So we’re going to put a beautiful stone surface down so that people — for instance, we had something the other day and it actually didn’t rain for three or four days and the women were still getting stuck in the grass. And we want to put it to work. So we’re going to do something in terms of a hard surface. It’ll look beautiful, you know —
KRISTEN WELKER:
And where will it be specifically?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Where the grass is, where there’s —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Where the grass is —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— grass is. There’s grass in the middle. The roses stay. Everything stays just the way it was, including the limestone paths and everything else. But we had the prime minister of India here and they had a lot of press, and the women were walking out with their shoes full of mud. So we can’t have that. The other thing — and you see what I’ve done to the Oval Office and that continues, 24-carat gold. It’s beautiful. And we have really gotten — because I know that people can be fresh and nasty, you know, but we’ve been getting rave reviews. It was not taken care of the way it should. Now, I have an advantage. I was a really good real estate developer so I know how to get things done. I know how to build it. You’ll see it in a minute when you look at the ballroom, which I built at Mar-a-Lago.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Could anything —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But the other thing, and the big thing, is going to be for 50 years they’ve wanted to build a ballroom at the White House. And they’ve tried, but the presidents were not real estate people. They had no clue. All you have to do is look at President Obama and look at his museum or library, whatever they call it, in Chicago. It’s a catastrophe. It’s way over-budget. Maybe it comes to an end. I don’t know what’s going on. But it’s a disaster because — and it’s not his fault. He’s not a real estate person. He doesn’t know how to build. I do really well. And what we’re going to do, you’re going to see the most beautiful ballroom in the world right now when you take a look.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
But we are going to make and build a ballroom, which they’ve wanted for probably a hundred years at the White House. And it’ll be a world-class, beautiful ballroom, and they’ll use the meeting rooms already existing. And we’re going to get that started over the next few months, and it’s going to be beautiful. And it’ll be done properly, and I will fund it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Will you bring — you will fund it?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Yeah. Yeah, I’m not going to ask the government for money. I’ll fund it, and I’m sure we’ll have some donations to it. But it’s not an inexpensive thing. It’ll cost a lot of money.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Where will it be?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
It’ll be near the — I guess you would say the East Wing, near the East Wing, a little complicated to explain without a drawing. But we have three or four different concepts, and we’re working with great architects, with great planners. And it will be something really beautiful, top of the line.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Finally, sir —
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
You know, when they have a party for, like, when the head of China comes in —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yeah.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
— or the head of anybody, you know, head of anything, they have a party where they have a tent 200 yards away, where people have to walk in the rain to get to a tent. And that’s not for us. That’s not for the United States of America.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I know you — you’re only 100 days into this second term, but have you thought about what you want your legacy to be?
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I want my legacy to be very much as the name of MAGA and what it represents. It’s called “Make America Great Again.” We were a great country for a period of time, and the last four years have been a disaster for the reputation of this country and for the fact of the country. It’s been a disaster. We’re going to make America great again. That’s all I want to do. I want to make it greater than ever before.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you, Mr. President.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
Thank you very much.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Appreciate it.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37503
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Mon May 05, 2025 7:42 pm
Signalgate Just Got WAY WORSE! White House Secrets HACKED!?
The Bulwark
May 5, 2025 Bulwark Takes
Andrew Egger and Joseph Cox dig into the Signal clone breach that exposed sensitive White House communications and how a photo under the table helped blow the story up.
Transcript
hey everyone this is Andrew Edgar with
the Bull Work The signal gate story
believe it or not keeps getting more
bizarre keeps getting stranger There
were a lot of questions when when these
stories started to drop when Jeffrey
Goldberg first got added to the Signal
chat about the hoodies a couple of
months back Uh what's going on with
Signal why are they using this encrypted
private app uh is this too is it
vulnerable to leaks is it vulnerable to
these kind of OBSC failures uh is it in
keeping with federal records uh
requirements where they need to log this
stuff we just got a brand new bit of
reporting uh over the weekend from
Joseph Cox He's the co-founder of 404
media He focuses on cyber security and
the digital underground He's here to
talk about his scoop Thanks for coming
on Joseph Absolutely Thanks for having
me So uh this is such a great story I
mean in in in so many ways but one of
the one of the most uh well let's let's
start with the meat of it first I mean
like can you just talk us through um
what what do we know about Signal and
how the White House is using it today
that we didn't know uh before you guys
had this story this weekend as you know
the White House is using Signal but then
what we found recently was that they use
a special version or a modified version
called teley message And we found that
because a Reuters photographer took a
photo of Waltz at the recent cabinet
meeting And if you zoom in you can see
that it's a weird version of Signal It
turns out it's basically a version that
copies the signal messages for storage
later Huh that's pretty interesting Also
brought up even more questions of well
how susceptible is that to being hacked
what if that is then targeted lo and
behold I don't know it took 48 hours
something like that Uh and what we have
now with this reporting over the weekend
is that a hacker did target tele and did
manage to obtain some users direct
messages and group chats sent over
signal but then also some of these other
modified versions of WhatsApp and
Telegram and WeChat as well But of
course to us the signal stuff is the
most uh significant Yeah Until we learn
that you know Donald Trump is is
messaging his stock broker on WeChat Uh
Signal will be the the main one here I
mean this is such a fascinating story to
me because I think it it it does answer
one question that a lot of us had had
lingering in the back of our minds about
the this signal scandal uh from from the
beginning which is these guys are are
bound by law to back this stuff up and
and are they just ignoring that law are
they just flouting it what's going on
here and I think that so part of the
like one of the puzzle pieces here is no
they they don't appear to be flouting
that They appear to be using this kind
of workaround system to be able to make
use of the signal infrastructure while
still preserving some kind of digital
record But at the same time you open up
a whole new kind of alarm bells uh set
of questions about the reliability of
that service and the and the uh you know
how how susceptible that is to uh to to
you know hostile actors or just bad
actors of any kind um getting in there
and and and playing around with the data
Um can you just talk in a little bit
more detail about what the nature of
this this breach was that that this
hacker that you were that you were
interviewing for this piece uh I believe
he's he's anonymous right in in the
piece Um so so what did what did he find
uh and and kind of what should our level
of alarm be as we're as we're you know
thinking about our top government
officials making use of this service for
their internal communications yeah we
don't know who the hacker is That's
actually often the case with some of
these stories I work on They provide
accurate information that we go and
verify but we don't know who that is
because obviously they don't exactly
want to reveal their real name or
identity when they're doing something
that's probably criminal uh in nature
But what they did was they found a way
to target a teley message server and
this was sort of where the messages were
going at least from our understanding
where the messages were being rooted
through to before they were being
archived wherever that might be right
and the hacker was able to find a way to
see these sorts of snapshots of data as
they flew across those Um and that
sounds you know a little bit technical
and we actually don't get too technical
in the story because we don't want
people to be able to go and replicate
this as well obviously right and it
looks like tele message has actually
taken their back end down at the moment
we haven't put that in print yet but
from everything it looks like that so
the hacker managed to get there and then
crucially in those snapshots of data
they obtained there were actually
usernames and passwords to then log into
more tele systems So they went in uh and
they found various things such as a
bunch of contact information for
officials from Customs and Border
Protection indicating that agency uses
the tool as well Um a bunch of contact
information for employees at Coinbase
too the cryptocurrency company So we
verified this data in in various
different ways but one was I took that
list of Customs and Border officials and
I just started phoning them up and
asking them "Hi are you an official of
Customs and Border Protection?" Um some
confirmed it either through their
voicemail messages or just talking to me
on the phone then very quickly hanging
up when they realized what was going on
But that was one of the different ways
we verified all of this because as you
say we don't know who the hacker is We
don't we're not going to have any
insight into that but this is clearly
significant even though you know I don't
have Mike Walt's messages necessarily
right and we don't think the hacker has
obtained those either But the fact that
this hacker spent 15 or 20 minutes they
say it took to break into this system
and they were able to do that so quickly
and get all of these messages I mean it
is alarming And if a random basically
hacker could do this it makes you think
well have foreign uh nation adversary
state intelligence agencies been looking
into this as well And it just creates
all of these even more questions now
somehow even though I thought we just
got some more answers too And obviously
you know maybe it goes without saying
but I'll say it anyway Uh a hostile
foreign entity a foreign intelligence
agency something like that Um they get
their hands on this data they do a
slightly different thing than than 404
media does with it which is they don't
immediately trumpet that there this
vulnerability exists so that you know
the the the different firms can go and
and quickly shut it all down I mean like
I I think as as the guy said in your
piece who the heck knows how long this
this has been open and how how long
people have been have had their eye you
know or had had you know one sensor down
in the in the data stream of all of this
stuff I mean it really is just kind of I
I was shocked My jaw was kind of on the
floor when I was when I was reading your
piece And obviously now to just to kind
of drill down on on what you mean by
sort of snapshots of data right i mean
obviously the gold standard for for
finding out what's going on in in uh
White House Telegram or I'm sorry White
House signal chats is being accidentally
added uh to the to the chats uh under
your own power right that's the we call
that the Jeffrey Goldberg standard Um
but uh but you know so like this this is
somewhat somewhat less than that right
it's sort of like kind of random
snapshots of of data that happen to be
passing through this one random server
Can you just talk to me a little bit
about kind of what
the what the potential v vulnerabilities
are you know e even even though it's a
much uh a much more oblique or a much
less direct route to I mean uh route to
uh the kind of information that that
that I think you and I would be very
alarmed to just have out there in the
public eye Yeah And I mean there are
concrete aspects of it as well like we
have we have seen some messages even
though it wasn't of Trump officials or
or whatever There were there was one in
there to a group chat I believe where it
looked like people from a cryptocurrency
company from called Galaxy Digital um
were just talking about this
cryptocurrency bill which may or may not
go through and they're talking about
different dems support for it or they
don't want to support it that sort of
thing Um I'm not super interested in
whatever that bill is itself but it
shows how highly sensitive this is where
you have internal communications and
they're talking about something that's
happening right now This these are not
historical messages These are things
that are happening exactly at the time
where the hacker is intercepting them
Now of course it it does get a little
bit hypothetical and speculative but I
think it's absolutely fine to do so when
we've shown there are real messages
going across this Imagine if a foreign
adversary was able to intercept messages
from Waltz from other top tier US
government officials It completely
undermines the idea that oh I use signal
to communicate securely and signal is
secure but when you tack on this extra
tool for archiving purposes which as you
say is also good because they have to
keep copies of messages it just it does
introduce this severe new risk that you
are basically hiding the key under the
doormat for your security and all the
hack has to do is look under there Oh
okay Take it And then start reading
messages And you know this hacker as I
said did it in 15 to 20 minutes If they
had just sat there for a long time even
if they sat there for 48 hours they
would have had a lot lot lot more
material And if a nation state had been
doing that I mean there's no telling
what they could have intercepted from
those chats Can we just dwell for a
moment i mean every every element of the
story is is so remarkable so fascinating
but the you mentioned it right off the
top The fact that anybody got onto this
at all was just because Mike Waltz his
phone under the table at a cabinet
meeting was photographed by by you know
a White House photographer I mean like
that's
just I I I'm not asking you to you know
get editorial here but it's just kind of
like a every element of this kind of
compounds the clownishness one one after
another at least from from my point of
view I mean how how how long did it even
take from from when that did the hacker
himself only know about uh only know
about any of this from that picture as
well i I don't know maybe you can't talk
about that but uh but I'm curious if if
there is anything you can say about like
like the that picture is only like four
days old and you already have this story
out right yeah So I don't know the exact
series of events for the hacker and what
they learned and when But you know we
were first to report that Waltz was
using this tool because when I zoomed
into the photo I was like that is not
exactly the same as the signal UI and
I'm a sucker for those details You know
that's strange I spend a lot of time all
day every day looking at signal So I
know what signal looks like and this was
not that And then we published that and
a lot of other media outlets jump on as
well So it was very very high-profile
and then people started to go through
the tele message website the the website
of this company and they found oh a
version of the app was uploaded so
people could dig through that and when
something like this happens
technologists just descend on it because
they're very very curious um some of
them want to you know fix
vulnerabilities or find out what's going
on and I do think that's what the hacker
did here they yes they did something
which is controversial but they wanted
to see how secure it was and now now
maybe um it's going to fixed as well Um
but yeah I mean I'm pretty sure the
media firestorm led to it What I would
say is that just purely from like a
security perspective yes Waltz
accidentally revealed they use this
weird version of Signal but if you
really want to be secure that shouldn't
be an issue You know it shouldn't be an
issue that oh the government uses this
tool because the tool should just be
secure Like if that secret got out that
shouldn't be an issue you know
everybody's going to figure that out Um
the tool should just be welldesigned in
the first place And it seems in this
case well it probably wasn't because now
we have a bunch of these you know
internal messages Right Right Right
Which obviously just kind of compounds
the argument that that this is this is a
risk that you run when you are I mean
this the the whole the whole meta
scandal is the idea of using these
private apps where you are kind of
trusting various different companies
Maybe some of them are more wellknown
like signal and maybe some of them are
are uh significantly less wellknown like
tele that you're talking about here Um
and uh and it just kind of compounds the
potential vulnerabilities there Can I
just ask you one more kind of like meta
question here um which is uh just
because you know we we don't do a lot of
reporting in this space obviously we're
a political publication um this is a lot
more like just sort of your your day in
dayout stuff Will you just talk a little
bit about kind of what what what the the
journalistic kind of ethics are that
that that are involved with with you
know you you obviously have a source
here who's anonymous who is you know
doing this this work that's probably
illegal and yet there's this big public
interest in in knowing that that these
vulnerabilities exist and that the White
House is exposed to them and all these
sorts of things Can you just talk a
little bit about that at kind of the the
basic level yeah so it's often about the
trade-off between what you hold back and
what you publish Like I write about
vulnerabilities in websites companies
data breaches all day every day And
often what you do is you you have to
email the company give them obviously a
chance to comment and say "Hey this is
going on." Maybe they fix it Um maybe
they don't And it's very similar for
technologists or so-called white hat
hackers who they'll go and they'll tell
a company "Hey there's an issue with
your server You should probably fix
this." And maybe they get some money or
maybe they get a free t-shirt or
something In this case the hacker came
to the press because they thought this
company would probably cover it up Now I
don't know whether that's fair or not
That's impossible for me to say but as a
journalist it's always about okay if we
report on this are we amplifying the
risk or the issue at all and for example
that's why in the article where we did
include screenshots of you know the tele
message panel where all this contact
information of Customs and Border
Protections officials were I mean we
redacted that information Of course
we're not going to publish a bunch of
names phone numbers and email addresses
of random officials but we do want to
publish redacted screenshots because it
shows just how serious this breach is I
think it's one thing to describe it to a
reader It's another to show them look
this is literally what the breach looks
like And we did that with a redacted
signal message as well I think we can
leave it there Uh Joseph Cox with 404
Media thank you so much for for coming
on and talking to us about this stuff
It's a crazy story It's fascinating
story We'll link the story below Um and
I'll say thanks to everybody out there
who's watching Please uh subscribe to
the feed Head to the bullwork.com to get
our written stuff Although that's kind
of cheating I'm sliffing Head over to
404media What's your URL man i forget Is
it
404media.com?co We can't afford the com
Okay All right
404media.co Uh to to get Joseph stuff It
really is a remarkable story I'm gassing
you up a lot but I was I was my jaw was
on the floor All right Thanks everybody
Uh and we'll see you next time
The Bulwark
May 5, 2025 Bulwark Takes
Andrew Egger and Joseph Cox dig into the Signal clone breach that exposed sensitive White House communications and how a photo under the table helped blow the story up.
Transcript
hey everyone this is Andrew Edgar with
the Bull Work The signal gate story
believe it or not keeps getting more
bizarre keeps getting stranger There
were a lot of questions when when these
stories started to drop when Jeffrey
Goldberg first got added to the Signal
chat about the hoodies a couple of
months back Uh what's going on with
Signal why are they using this encrypted
private app uh is this too is it
vulnerable to leaks is it vulnerable to
these kind of OBSC failures uh is it in
keeping with federal records uh
requirements where they need to log this
stuff we just got a brand new bit of
reporting uh over the weekend from
Joseph Cox He's the co-founder of 404
media He focuses on cyber security and
the digital underground He's here to
talk about his scoop Thanks for coming
on Joseph Absolutely Thanks for having
me So uh this is such a great story I
mean in in in so many ways but one of
the one of the most uh well let's let's
start with the meat of it first I mean
like can you just talk us through um
what what do we know about Signal and
how the White House is using it today
that we didn't know uh before you guys
had this story this weekend as you know
the White House is using Signal but then
what we found recently was that they use
a special version or a modified version
called teley message And we found that
because a Reuters photographer took a
photo of Waltz at the recent cabinet
meeting And if you zoom in you can see
that it's a weird version of Signal It
turns out it's basically a version that
copies the signal messages for storage
later Huh that's pretty interesting Also
brought up even more questions of well
how susceptible is that to being hacked
what if that is then targeted lo and
behold I don't know it took 48 hours
something like that Uh and what we have
now with this reporting over the weekend
is that a hacker did target tele and did
manage to obtain some users direct
messages and group chats sent over
signal but then also some of these other
modified versions of WhatsApp and
Telegram and WeChat as well But of
course to us the signal stuff is the
most uh significant Yeah Until we learn
that you know Donald Trump is is
messaging his stock broker on WeChat Uh
Signal will be the the main one here I
mean this is such a fascinating story to
me because I think it it it does answer
one question that a lot of us had had
lingering in the back of our minds about
the this signal scandal uh from from the
beginning which is these guys are are
bound by law to back this stuff up and
and are they just ignoring that law are
they just flouting it what's going on
here and I think that so part of the
like one of the puzzle pieces here is no
they they don't appear to be flouting
that They appear to be using this kind
of workaround system to be able to make
use of the signal infrastructure while
still preserving some kind of digital
record But at the same time you open up
a whole new kind of alarm bells uh set
of questions about the reliability of
that service and the and the uh you know
how how susceptible that is to uh to to
you know hostile actors or just bad
actors of any kind um getting in there
and and and playing around with the data
Um can you just talk in a little bit
more detail about what the nature of
this this breach was that that this
hacker that you were that you were
interviewing for this piece uh I believe
he's he's anonymous right in in the
piece Um so so what did what did he find
uh and and kind of what should our level
of alarm be as we're as we're you know
thinking about our top government
officials making use of this service for
their internal communications yeah we
don't know who the hacker is That's
actually often the case with some of
these stories I work on They provide
accurate information that we go and
verify but we don't know who that is
because obviously they don't exactly
want to reveal their real name or
identity when they're doing something
that's probably criminal uh in nature
But what they did was they found a way
to target a teley message server and
this was sort of where the messages were
going at least from our understanding
where the messages were being rooted
through to before they were being
archived wherever that might be right
and the hacker was able to find a way to
see these sorts of snapshots of data as
they flew across those Um and that
sounds you know a little bit technical
and we actually don't get too technical
in the story because we don't want
people to be able to go and replicate
this as well obviously right and it
looks like tele message has actually
taken their back end down at the moment
we haven't put that in print yet but
from everything it looks like that so
the hacker managed to get there and then
crucially in those snapshots of data
they obtained there were actually
usernames and passwords to then log into
more tele systems So they went in uh and
they found various things such as a
bunch of contact information for
officials from Customs and Border
Protection indicating that agency uses
the tool as well Um a bunch of contact
information for employees at Coinbase
too the cryptocurrency company So we
verified this data in in various
different ways but one was I took that
list of Customs and Border officials and
I just started phoning them up and
asking them "Hi are you an official of
Customs and Border Protection?" Um some
confirmed it either through their
voicemail messages or just talking to me
on the phone then very quickly hanging
up when they realized what was going on
But that was one of the different ways
we verified all of this because as you
say we don't know who the hacker is We
don't we're not going to have any
insight into that but this is clearly
significant even though you know I don't
have Mike Walt's messages necessarily
right and we don't think the hacker has
obtained those either But the fact that
this hacker spent 15 or 20 minutes they
say it took to break into this system
and they were able to do that so quickly
and get all of these messages I mean it
is alarming And if a random basically
hacker could do this it makes you think
well have foreign uh nation adversary
state intelligence agencies been looking
into this as well And it just creates
all of these even more questions now
somehow even though I thought we just
got some more answers too And obviously
you know maybe it goes without saying
but I'll say it anyway Uh a hostile
foreign entity a foreign intelligence
agency something like that Um they get
their hands on this data they do a
slightly different thing than than 404
media does with it which is they don't
immediately trumpet that there this
vulnerability exists so that you know
the the the different firms can go and
and quickly shut it all down I mean like
I I think as as the guy said in your
piece who the heck knows how long this
this has been open and how how long
people have been have had their eye you
know or had had you know one sensor down
in the in the data stream of all of this
stuff I mean it really is just kind of I
I was shocked My jaw was kind of on the
floor when I was when I was reading your
piece And obviously now to just to kind
of drill down on on what you mean by
sort of snapshots of data right i mean
obviously the gold standard for for
finding out what's going on in in uh
White House Telegram or I'm sorry White
House signal chats is being accidentally
added uh to the to the chats uh under
your own power right that's the we call
that the Jeffrey Goldberg standard Um
but uh but you know so like this this is
somewhat somewhat less than that right
it's sort of like kind of random
snapshots of of data that happen to be
passing through this one random server
Can you just talk to me a little bit
about kind of what
the what the potential v vulnerabilities
are you know e even even though it's a
much uh a much more oblique or a much
less direct route to I mean uh route to
uh the kind of information that that
that I think you and I would be very
alarmed to just have out there in the
public eye Yeah And I mean there are
concrete aspects of it as well like we
have we have seen some messages even
though it wasn't of Trump officials or
or whatever There were there was one in
there to a group chat I believe where it
looked like people from a cryptocurrency
company from called Galaxy Digital um
were just talking about this
cryptocurrency bill which may or may not
go through and they're talking about
different dems support for it or they
don't want to support it that sort of
thing Um I'm not super interested in
whatever that bill is itself but it
shows how highly sensitive this is where
you have internal communications and
they're talking about something that's
happening right now This these are not
historical messages These are things
that are happening exactly at the time
where the hacker is intercepting them
Now of course it it does get a little
bit hypothetical and speculative but I
think it's absolutely fine to do so when
we've shown there are real messages
going across this Imagine if a foreign
adversary was able to intercept messages
from Waltz from other top tier US
government officials It completely
undermines the idea that oh I use signal
to communicate securely and signal is
secure but when you tack on this extra
tool for archiving purposes which as you
say is also good because they have to
keep copies of messages it just it does
introduce this severe new risk that you
are basically hiding the key under the
doormat for your security and all the
hack has to do is look under there Oh
okay Take it And then start reading
messages And you know this hacker as I
said did it in 15 to 20 minutes If they
had just sat there for a long time even
if they sat there for 48 hours they
would have had a lot lot lot more
material And if a nation state had been
doing that I mean there's no telling
what they could have intercepted from
those chats Can we just dwell for a
moment i mean every every element of the
story is is so remarkable so fascinating
but the you mentioned it right off the
top The fact that anybody got onto this
at all was just because Mike Waltz his
phone under the table at a cabinet
meeting was photographed by by you know
a White House photographer I mean like
that's
just I I I'm not asking you to you know
get editorial here but it's just kind of
like a every element of this kind of
compounds the clownishness one one after
another at least from from my point of
view I mean how how how long did it even
take from from when that did the hacker
himself only know about uh only know
about any of this from that picture as
well i I don't know maybe you can't talk
about that but uh but I'm curious if if
there is anything you can say about like
like the that picture is only like four
days old and you already have this story
out right yeah So I don't know the exact
series of events for the hacker and what
they learned and when But you know we
were first to report that Waltz was
using this tool because when I zoomed
into the photo I was like that is not
exactly the same as the signal UI and
I'm a sucker for those details You know
that's strange I spend a lot of time all
day every day looking at signal So I
know what signal looks like and this was
not that And then we published that and
a lot of other media outlets jump on as
well So it was very very high-profile
and then people started to go through
the tele message website the the website
of this company and they found oh a
version of the app was uploaded so
people could dig through that and when
something like this happens
technologists just descend on it because
they're very very curious um some of
them want to you know fix
vulnerabilities or find out what's going
on and I do think that's what the hacker
did here they yes they did something
which is controversial but they wanted
to see how secure it was and now now
maybe um it's going to fixed as well Um
but yeah I mean I'm pretty sure the
media firestorm led to it What I would
say is that just purely from like a
security perspective yes Waltz
accidentally revealed they use this
weird version of Signal but if you
really want to be secure that shouldn't
be an issue You know it shouldn't be an
issue that oh the government uses this
tool because the tool should just be
secure Like if that secret got out that
shouldn't be an issue you know
everybody's going to figure that out Um
the tool should just be welldesigned in
the first place And it seems in this
case well it probably wasn't because now
we have a bunch of these you know
internal messages Right Right Right
Which obviously just kind of compounds
the argument that that this is this is a
risk that you run when you are I mean
this the the whole the whole meta
scandal is the idea of using these
private apps where you are kind of
trusting various different companies
Maybe some of them are more wellknown
like signal and maybe some of them are
are uh significantly less wellknown like
tele that you're talking about here Um
and uh and it just kind of compounds the
potential vulnerabilities there Can I
just ask you one more kind of like meta
question here um which is uh just
because you know we we don't do a lot of
reporting in this space obviously we're
a political publication um this is a lot
more like just sort of your your day in
dayout stuff Will you just talk a little
bit about kind of what what what the the
journalistic kind of ethics are that
that that are involved with with you
know you you obviously have a source
here who's anonymous who is you know
doing this this work that's probably
illegal and yet there's this big public
interest in in knowing that that these
vulnerabilities exist and that the White
House is exposed to them and all these
sorts of things Can you just talk a
little bit about that at kind of the the
basic level yeah so it's often about the
trade-off between what you hold back and
what you publish Like I write about
vulnerabilities in websites companies
data breaches all day every day And
often what you do is you you have to
email the company give them obviously a
chance to comment and say "Hey this is
going on." Maybe they fix it Um maybe
they don't And it's very similar for
technologists or so-called white hat
hackers who they'll go and they'll tell
a company "Hey there's an issue with
your server You should probably fix
this." And maybe they get some money or
maybe they get a free t-shirt or
something In this case the hacker came
to the press because they thought this
company would probably cover it up Now I
don't know whether that's fair or not
That's impossible for me to say but as a
journalist it's always about okay if we
report on this are we amplifying the
risk or the issue at all and for example
that's why in the article where we did
include screenshots of you know the tele
message panel where all this contact
information of Customs and Border
Protections officials were I mean we
redacted that information Of course
we're not going to publish a bunch of
names phone numbers and email addresses
of random officials but we do want to
publish redacted screenshots because it
shows just how serious this breach is I
think it's one thing to describe it to a
reader It's another to show them look
this is literally what the breach looks
like And we did that with a redacted
signal message as well I think we can
leave it there Uh Joseph Cox with 404
Media thank you so much for for coming
on and talking to us about this stuff
It's a crazy story It's fascinating
story We'll link the story below Um and
I'll say thanks to everybody out there
who's watching Please uh subscribe to
the feed Head to the bullwork.com to get
our written stuff Although that's kind
of cheating I'm sliffing Head over to
404media What's your URL man i forget Is
it
404media.com?co We can't afford the com
Okay All right
404media.co Uh to to get Joseph stuff It
really is a remarkable story I'm gassing
you up a lot but I was I was my jaw was
on the floor All right Thanks everybody
Uh and we'll see you next time
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37503
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue May 06, 2025 12:51 am
DOJ Targets More PROSECUTORS in TROUBLING Development
by Melba Pearson
Legal AF
May 5, 2025
The DOJ is investigating Minnesota prosecutor Mary Moriarty over a policy that factors in race and age during plea bargaining. The Resident Legal Diva, Melba Pearson, breaks down the legal and political implications of the case and what it signals for the future of progressive prosecution and equity in the justice system.
Transcript
In a move that has surprised absolutely
no one the Department of Justice is
going after local
prosecutors let's break that down hi I'm
Mela Pearson also known as the resident
legal diva and this is the breakdown if
you enjoy the content on this channel be
sure to like comment subscribe and tell
a friend so the head of the DOJ
Department of Justice Civil Rights
Division which hasn't really been about
civil rights lately but we'll get to
that in a moment she announced uh over
the weekend on social media rather than
actually putting something in writing
but separate issue she announced on
social media that she's investigating
the county prosecutor for one of the
largest counties in Minnesota it's
Henipin County which is where
Minneapolis is located so she's going
after the district attorney there county
attorney different titles but same thing
saying that her policy around
considering race as a factor in plea
deals is something that is
illegal and they think that it is abuse
of prosecutorial decision-making so
Henman County the state attorney or
county attorney there is named Mary
Morerti she released a new policy to her
prosecutors directing them to be aware
of racial or age considerations in plea
negotiations and sentencing so what the
memo actually says is while racial
identity and age are not appropriate
grounds for departures proposed
resolutions should consider the person
charged as a whole person including
their racial identity and age while
these factors should not be controlling
they should be part of the overall
analysis racial disparities harm our
community lead to distrust and have a
negative impact on community safety
prosecutors should be identifying and
addressing racial disparities at
decision points as appropriate
so
the DOJ now is saying that they're
launching this federal investigation to
determine whether or not the local
prosecutors have created a quote unquote
a pattern or practice of depriving
persons of rights privileges or
immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution of the US now let's keep in
mind the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice has had a massive
hemorrhage we're talking hundreds of
attorneys and staff members have pieced
out in recent weeks they have resigned
because they're like "Listen you are
reassigning us you're departing from the
core mission of what the civil rights
division of the Department of Justice
does which is actually investigate real
civil rights abuses case in point
investigating police departments for
excessive use of force investigating
hate crimes whether the Proud Boys or
the Clan are going after people looking
at racial gerrymandering and not
allowing people of certain races to be
able to vote and now people are like "Oh
you know you can go vote." No no things
like not having enough polling places in
a particular neighborhood or not having
enough voting machines to even be able
to vote things like that that's
traditionally what the Department of
Justice would use their power to
investigate but now what's very
insidious here is that the Department of
Justice is going after this prosecutor's
office saying that somehow they are
favoring black people over white people
when it comes to plea agreements so
again huge issue because the Department
of Justice is now weaponizing his power
to target anyone who doesn't agree with
them and who's on the top of that list
any prosecutor that's been about reform
about trying to address the historic
injustices that have happened in the
criminal justice system and make sure
that everybody's treated fairly that's
what reform is about but as we well know
this administration is not about reform
unless it means giving more power to
those who already have power and further
marginalizing people who have already
been marginalized so the pattern and
practice investigations that they're
referring to again were designed to
protect against racism all right so this
was something that was used in the
investigation of the Minneapolis Police
Department in the wake of the murder of
George Floyd by Derek Schovin that
investigation was critical to making
sure he was held accountable not only on
the state level but also on the federal
level he was convicted both federally
and on the state level that is what the
Department of Justice Civil Rights
Division is supposed to be about so
they're clearly deporting from their
mandate right here we can totally see
that so I'm not going to dive too deeply
into the policy itself because again a
lot of it is self-explanatory but what
I'll talk about is this from the
perspective as a former prosecutor so
prosecutors have the discretion to
decide what the appropriate charges are
for a case whether charges apply at all
or whether the person should get
diversion or basically a program that
gets them out of the criminal justice
system so that they could address the
root cause of the crime or if somebody
needs to go to prison for the rest of
their life prosecutors have that wide of
a discretion and so it is not abnormal
for the top prosecutor whether it be on
the federal level we saw it with uh you
know previous administrations Merrick
Garland when he was the head of the
Department of Justice Loretta Lynch they
usually will send out a memo saying this
is kind of how we want you to address
cases analyze cases etc and so what this
local prosecutor did and again uh county
attorney uh the county attorney is
elected in this particular jurisdiction
local prosecutors can be elected or they
could be appointed by the governor of
their state but again they're
accountable to the
people but they have that ability to
kind of let the prosecutors know this is
what we're prioritizing this is kind of
how I want you to look at your cases and
there has been a growing trend of using
data and other analytics to look at
racial disparities and figure out
whether or not black people are getting
worse sentences than white people
accounting for all similarities so in
other words if you have two defendants
one white one black with the same
criminal history charged with the same
crime are they going to get the same
exact sentence or is the black person
going to get a worse sentence than the
white person that's a problem right
because that's not equity you want to
make sure that everyone is being treated
equally under the law we know
historically that has not been the case
for a ton of races that's a whole other
video but some in substance look at the
prisons it's not because black people
are more violent than white people that
has clearly been debunked even though
this administration keeps trying to go
back to old dismantled racial tropes but
the reality is everybody has the same
level of violence the question is who
gets caught and the second question is
how are they treated i think probably
the best example of this would be the
Stanford sexual assault case right you
had this this young man who sexually
assaulted this woman and he was a
swimmer and everybody was like "Oh my
gosh he has this future ahead of him
that's so bright and he's going to
represent our country in the Olympics oh
my gosh." And so the judge basically
gave him a slap on the wrist and
simultaneously folks were able to pull a
ton of cases from his courtroom from
that jurisdiction and all of that to
show that similarly situated black
defendants who were football stars
whatever the case may be had no criminal
history but were also charged with
sexual assault got 5 years in prison 10
years in prison 15 years in prison while
you had the white golden boy get
basically probation for the same exact
crime that's not cool that's not okay so
more and more elected prosecutors from
both sides of the aisle so let's be
clear this is not like a liberal like
whatever type of mindset conservative
prosecutors too are like I don't want
unfairness to happen on my watch i don't
want anyone to point at me and say my
office is furthering racial disparities
they want to be able to get up and say
everybody's being treated fairly in my
jurisdiction so that's why looking at
these disparities is so important just
to make sure that you're being fair and
evenhanded across the board so basically
to me in the reading of what's been made
publicly available of this policy it
says the same thing it's not saying just
because you're black give them a better
deal or just because you're young or or
older you know you get a different deal
it's look at the entire person look at
the totality of the circumstances what's
going to be in the best interest of
justice and also make sure you're
checking your biases at the door i would
think that's what we would want
prosecutors to do to check their biases
at the door and look at what's going to
be the best for this case what's going
to be the best for the survivor of crime
or the next of kin in this case what's
going to be the best way to hold this
person accountable and not oh because I
think this person has more of a future
or their life is more valuable I'm going
to give them a different plea or ask for
a different sentence after conviction
than this other person so this again is
another it's just another sign of how
democracy is under attack by this
administration it's another way that
this Department of Justice is going
after people who are trying to do the
right thing trying to make sure that
there's fairness and equality in our
system because they don't want fairless
and equality they want a lopsided system
where anybody who is from a marginalized
community is on the bottom knows their
role and shuts their mouth while the
people with power get to operate with
impunity assault people with impunity
steal leak information with absolutely
no
accountability so again this was not
unexpected it's disgusting as all get
out and I'm going to be keeping an eye
on this but again y'all you need to be
keeping your eye on this locally as well
because your prosecutor may soon be
under attack as well and if they're
under attack that means you're under
attack because if you voted for this
person and now the Department of Justice
wants to take them out of play by
basically prosecuting them for nonsense
that's disenfranchising you that's
silencing your vote and your voice so
this is all just disturbing 10 different
ways from sunrise i'll be back when
there's more
information i'm Melba Pearson also known
as the resident legal diva and this was
the breakdown if you enjoy the content
on this channel be sure to like comment
subscribe and tell a friend that we are
the resistance take care can't get your
fill of legal AF me neither that's why
we formed the Legal AF Substack every
time we mention something in a hottake
whether it's a court filing or a oral
argument come over to the Substack
you'll find the court filing and the
oral argument there including a daily
roundup that I do called wait for it
Morning AF what else all the other
contributors from Legal AF are there as
well we got some new reporting we got
interviews we got ad free versions of
the podcast and hot takes where legal AF
on Substack come over now for free
subscribe
by Melba Pearson
Legal AF
May 5, 2025
The DOJ is investigating Minnesota prosecutor Mary Moriarty over a policy that factors in race and age during plea bargaining. The Resident Legal Diva, Melba Pearson, breaks down the legal and political implications of the case and what it signals for the future of progressive prosecution and equity in the justice system.
Transcript
In a move that has surprised absolutely
no one the Department of Justice is
going after local
prosecutors let's break that down hi I'm
Mela Pearson also known as the resident
legal diva and this is the breakdown if
you enjoy the content on this channel be
sure to like comment subscribe and tell
a friend so the head of the DOJ
Department of Justice Civil Rights
Division which hasn't really been about
civil rights lately but we'll get to
that in a moment she announced uh over
the weekend on social media rather than
actually putting something in writing
but separate issue she announced on
social media that she's investigating
the county prosecutor for one of the
largest counties in Minnesota it's
Henipin County which is where
Minneapolis is located so she's going
after the district attorney there county
attorney different titles but same thing
saying that her policy around
considering race as a factor in plea
deals is something that is
illegal and they think that it is abuse
of prosecutorial decision-making so
Henman County the state attorney or
county attorney there is named Mary
Morerti she released a new policy to her
prosecutors directing them to be aware
of racial or age considerations in plea
negotiations and sentencing so what the
memo actually says is while racial
identity and age are not appropriate
grounds for departures proposed
resolutions should consider the person
charged as a whole person including
their racial identity and age while
these factors should not be controlling
they should be part of the overall
analysis racial disparities harm our
community lead to distrust and have a
negative impact on community safety
prosecutors should be identifying and
addressing racial disparities at
decision points as appropriate
so
the DOJ now is saying that they're
launching this federal investigation to
determine whether or not the local
prosecutors have created a quote unquote
a pattern or practice of depriving
persons of rights privileges or
immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution of the US now let's keep in
mind the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice has had a massive
hemorrhage we're talking hundreds of
attorneys and staff members have pieced
out in recent weeks they have resigned
because they're like "Listen you are
reassigning us you're departing from the
core mission of what the civil rights
division of the Department of Justice
does which is actually investigate real
civil rights abuses case in point
investigating police departments for
excessive use of force investigating
hate crimes whether the Proud Boys or
the Clan are going after people looking
at racial gerrymandering and not
allowing people of certain races to be
able to vote and now people are like "Oh
you know you can go vote." No no things
like not having enough polling places in
a particular neighborhood or not having
enough voting machines to even be able
to vote things like that that's
traditionally what the Department of
Justice would use their power to
investigate but now what's very
insidious here is that the Department of
Justice is going after this prosecutor's
office saying that somehow they are
favoring black people over white people
when it comes to plea agreements so
again huge issue because the Department
of Justice is now weaponizing his power
to target anyone who doesn't agree with
them and who's on the top of that list
any prosecutor that's been about reform
about trying to address the historic
injustices that have happened in the
criminal justice system and make sure
that everybody's treated fairly that's
what reform is about but as we well know
this administration is not about reform
unless it means giving more power to
those who already have power and further
marginalizing people who have already
been marginalized so the pattern and
practice investigations that they're
referring to again were designed to
protect against racism all right so this
was something that was used in the
investigation of the Minneapolis Police
Department in the wake of the murder of
George Floyd by Derek Schovin that
investigation was critical to making
sure he was held accountable not only on
the state level but also on the federal
level he was convicted both federally
and on the state level that is what the
Department of Justice Civil Rights
Division is supposed to be about so
they're clearly deporting from their
mandate right here we can totally see
that so I'm not going to dive too deeply
into the policy itself because again a
lot of it is self-explanatory but what
I'll talk about is this from the
perspective as a former prosecutor so
prosecutors have the discretion to
decide what the appropriate charges are
for a case whether charges apply at all
or whether the person should get
diversion or basically a program that
gets them out of the criminal justice
system so that they could address the
root cause of the crime or if somebody
needs to go to prison for the rest of
their life prosecutors have that wide of
a discretion and so it is not abnormal
for the top prosecutor whether it be on
the federal level we saw it with uh you
know previous administrations Merrick
Garland when he was the head of the
Department of Justice Loretta Lynch they
usually will send out a memo saying this
is kind of how we want you to address
cases analyze cases etc and so what this
local prosecutor did and again uh county
attorney uh the county attorney is
elected in this particular jurisdiction
local prosecutors can be elected or they
could be appointed by the governor of
their state but again they're
accountable to the
people but they have that ability to
kind of let the prosecutors know this is
what we're prioritizing this is kind of
how I want you to look at your cases and
there has been a growing trend of using
data and other analytics to look at
racial disparities and figure out
whether or not black people are getting
worse sentences than white people
accounting for all similarities so in
other words if you have two defendants
one white one black with the same
criminal history charged with the same
crime are they going to get the same
exact sentence or is the black person
going to get a worse sentence than the
white person that's a problem right
because that's not equity you want to
make sure that everyone is being treated
equally under the law we know
historically that has not been the case
for a ton of races that's a whole other
video but some in substance look at the
prisons it's not because black people
are more violent than white people that
has clearly been debunked even though
this administration keeps trying to go
back to old dismantled racial tropes but
the reality is everybody has the same
level of violence the question is who
gets caught and the second question is
how are they treated i think probably
the best example of this would be the
Stanford sexual assault case right you
had this this young man who sexually
assaulted this woman and he was a
swimmer and everybody was like "Oh my
gosh he has this future ahead of him
that's so bright and he's going to
represent our country in the Olympics oh
my gosh." And so the judge basically
gave him a slap on the wrist and
simultaneously folks were able to pull a
ton of cases from his courtroom from
that jurisdiction and all of that to
show that similarly situated black
defendants who were football stars
whatever the case may be had no criminal
history but were also charged with
sexual assault got 5 years in prison 10
years in prison 15 years in prison while
you had the white golden boy get
basically probation for the same exact
crime that's not cool that's not okay so
more and more elected prosecutors from
both sides of the aisle so let's be
clear this is not like a liberal like
whatever type of mindset conservative
prosecutors too are like I don't want
unfairness to happen on my watch i don't
want anyone to point at me and say my
office is furthering racial disparities
they want to be able to get up and say
everybody's being treated fairly in my
jurisdiction so that's why looking at
these disparities is so important just
to make sure that you're being fair and
evenhanded across the board so basically
to me in the reading of what's been made
publicly available of this policy it
says the same thing it's not saying just
because you're black give them a better
deal or just because you're young or or
older you know you get a different deal
it's look at the entire person look at
the totality of the circumstances what's
going to be in the best interest of
justice and also make sure you're
checking your biases at the door i would
think that's what we would want
prosecutors to do to check their biases
at the door and look at what's going to
be the best for this case what's going
to be the best for the survivor of crime
or the next of kin in this case what's
going to be the best way to hold this
person accountable and not oh because I
think this person has more of a future
or their life is more valuable I'm going
to give them a different plea or ask for
a different sentence after conviction
than this other person so this again is
another it's just another sign of how
democracy is under attack by this
administration it's another way that
this Department of Justice is going
after people who are trying to do the
right thing trying to make sure that
there's fairness and equality in our
system because they don't want fairless
and equality they want a lopsided system
where anybody who is from a marginalized
community is on the bottom knows their
role and shuts their mouth while the
people with power get to operate with
impunity assault people with impunity
steal leak information with absolutely
no
accountability so again this was not
unexpected it's disgusting as all get
out and I'm going to be keeping an eye
on this but again y'all you need to be
keeping your eye on this locally as well
because your prosecutor may soon be
under attack as well and if they're
under attack that means you're under
attack because if you voted for this
person and now the Department of Justice
wants to take them out of play by
basically prosecuting them for nonsense
that's disenfranchising you that's
silencing your vote and your voice so
this is all just disturbing 10 different
ways from sunrise i'll be back when
there's more
information i'm Melba Pearson also known
as the resident legal diva and this was
the breakdown if you enjoy the content
on this channel be sure to like comment
subscribe and tell a friend that we are
the resistance take care can't get your
fill of legal AF me neither that's why
we formed the Legal AF Substack every
time we mention something in a hottake
whether it's a court filing or a oral
argument come over to the Substack
you'll find the court filing and the
oral argument there including a daily
roundup that I do called wait for it
Morning AF what else all the other
contributors from Legal AF are there as
well we got some new reporting we got
interviews we got ad free versions of
the podcast and hot takes where legal AF
on Substack come over now for free
subscribe
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37503
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue May 06, 2025 6:44 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37503
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue May 06, 2025 7:13 am
President Donald Trump posted this AI-generated photo of himself dressed as the pope on X (Twitter) as Catholics worldwide are mourning the death of Pope Francis.
May 2, 2025
************
Catholic community reacts to Trump's AI image of himself as the pope. The AI-generated image shows Trump wearing papal clothes, sitting on a throne.
by Megan Forrester
ABC News
May 5, 2025, 12:29 PM
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/catholi ... =121447607
An AI-generated image of President Donald Trump dressed as the pope is drawing criticism from some Catholics after it was posted on social media just days before the papal conclave to select the next pontiff begins in Rome.
The image, which was shared on Trump's social media and the official White House account on Friday evening, shows an AI-generated image of the president wearing papal clothes and sitting on a throne.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, was asked by reporters about the image after he had finished a service at a church in Rome on Sunday. In his response, Dolan used the Italian words, "brutta figura," meaning the post was embarrassing.
"I hope he didn't have anything to do with it," Dolan said. "It wasn't good. As Italians say, it was brutta figura."
The New York State Catholic Conference also voiced outrage at the image, saying, "There is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President."
"We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us," the conference said on X on Saturday.
Trump said on Monday that it was a joke, and claimed no Catholics were offended.
"They can't take a joke? You don't mean the Catholics, you mean the fake news media? No, the Catholics loved it," Trump said. "I had nothing to do with it. Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the pope and they put it out on the internet. That's not me that did it. I have no idea where it came from. Maybe it was AI, but I know nothing about it. I just saw it last evening. Actually, my wife thought it was cute. She said, 'Isn't that nice?'"
He added, "Actually, I would not be able to be married, though. That would be a lot. ... To the best of my knowledge, popes aren't big on getting married, are they? Not that we know of."
Father James Martin, a papal contributor for ABC, said on "This Week" Sunday, "People were surprised by it and thought it was incredibly poor taste, but over here in Rome more people are concerned about the next pope than the current president."
Vice President JD Vance, who is Catholic, denied the post was offensive. When conservative commentator Bill Kristol wrote on X, "Hey, @JDVance, you fine with this disrespect and mocking of the Holy Father?" the vice president replied, "As a general rule, I'm fine with people telling jokes and not fine with people starting stupid wars that kill thousands of my countrymen."
When asked to respond to the criticism, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump "flew to Italy to pay his respects for Pope Francis and attend his funeral, and he has been a staunch champion for Catholics and religious liberty," according to The Associated Press.
The process to elect the next pope will begin on Wednesday, according to the Vatican.
ABC News' Camilla Alcini contributed to this report.
****************
Trump says he 'had nothing to do with' apparent AI-generated pope image he posted online. The image was posted on Trump's and the White House's social media accounts, sparking criticism from Catholics at home and abroad.
by Clarissa-Jan Lim
msnbc.com
May 6, 2025, 9:30 AM MDT / Updated May 6, 2025, 11:17 AM MDT
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/lates ... rcna205068
President Donald Trump pleaded ignorance to an apparent AI-generated image depicting him as the pope that was posted to his and the White House’s social media accounts, accusing the media of fabricating the backlash over the image.
“You mean they can’t take a joke? You don’t mean the Catholics, you mean the fake news media,” Trump told reporters Monday about the image, which shows him in papal clothing. “No, the Catholics loved it.”
He added: “I had nothing to do with it. Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the pope and they put it out on the internet. That’s not me that did it. I have no idea where it came from. Maybe it was AI. But I know nothing about it.”
Trump’s Truth Social account and the White House’s X account both posted the image Friday night, sparking near-instant criticism from Catholics at home and abroad who said it was offensive.
“There is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President,” the New York State Catholic Conference wrote in a post on X the next morning. “We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us.”
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, told reporters Sunday that the image was in poor taste. “I hope he didn’t have anything to do with it,” Dolan said about Trump. “It wasn’t good.
Former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi also weighed in. In a post on X, Renzi wrote in Italian that the image “offends believers, insults institutions and shows that the leader of the global right enjoys being a clown.”
Trump also suggested Monday that he first saw the image “last evening.”
“I think it’s the fake news media that — you know, they’re fakers,” he added.
The purported AI image would not have been the first time Trump has suggested he should be pope. Earlier last week, when asked about the papal conclave, Trump said he was his own “number one choice” for the head of the Catholic Church.
As my colleague Steve Benen has pointed out, Trump has tried to evade responsibility for a litany of problems during his second term. From national domestic issues — such as his immigration policy and the Signal group chat debacle — to smaller-scale controversies like the pope image, when faced with any degree of pushback, you can expect Trump to pass the buck.
****************************
Trump Denies Posting Image of Himself as Pope, Laughing Off Critics. The president suggested Catholics, who have criticized the apparently A.I.-generated image, were not offended, and said that anyone who was “can’t take a joke.”
by Aishvarya Kavi
Reporting from Washington
New York Times
Published May 5, 2025
Updated May 6, 2025, 12:21 p.m. ET
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
President Trump said on Monday that he “had nothing to do with” a depiction of himself as the pope that was shared on his and White House social media accounts over the weekend, distancing himself from the apparently A.I.-generated image that has agitated Catholics.
“I had nothing to do with it,” Mr. Trump said while taking questions in the Oval Office. “Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the pope, and they put it out on the internet. That’s not me that did it, I have no idea where it came from — maybe it was A.I. But I have no idea where it came from.”
Mr. Trump, responding to a question about Catholics who are displeased with the image of him dressed in white papal robes and a ceremonial headdress, also attempted to downplay the mounting criticism.
“They can’t take a joke,” Mr. Trump said, quickly telling the reporter, “You don’t mean the Catholics; you mean the fake news media. The Catholics loved it.”
But Catholics across the country, including a prominent American cardinal, have suggested the image is offensive, especially as they mourn the death of Pope Francis. Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, in Rome for the papal conclave, said when asked about the image on Sunday that he hoped it was not the president’s doing.
“I hope he didn’t have anything to do with that,” Cardinal Dolan said. Asked if he was offended by it, the cardinal demurred but called the image a “brutta figura,” meaning it had made a bad impression.
While the president insisted he did not know about the image of himself as pope, it was posted by the White House on X and by his own Truth Social account, which has shared several apparently A.I.-generated images.
Asked by reporters last week who he would like to be pope, Mr. Trump first made the joke that he was his own “No. 1” choice. He then referred to Cardinal Dolan as “a very good” option. (Mr. Dolan is not a likely candidate.)
Mr. Trump is not Catholic, but his wife, Melania Trump, is Roman Catholic. Mrs. Trump was apparently fond of the image of her husband in papal vestments.
“Actually, my wife thought it was cute,” Mr. Trump insisted on Monday in the Oval Office. “She said, ‘Isn’t that nice?’”
Some Catholic leaders in the United States had said the image could be interpreted as a mockery of their faith. “It’s never appropriate to ridicule or mock the papacy,” Dennis Poust, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, the public policy arm for the state’s Catholic bishops, told The New York Times.
Mr. Trump wooed votes from the nation’s Catholics during both of his campaigns, and during the 2024 race, he chose a vice president who converted to Catholicism as an adult. Vice President JD Vance has been open about how his faith informs his politics.
“I’m fine with people telling jokes,” Mr. Vance posted on social media in response to a question about the image.
Aishvarya Kavi works in the Washington bureau of The Times, helping to cover a variety of political and national news.
May 2, 2025
"[I am] excited to hear that President Trump is open to the idea of being the next Pope ... The first Pope-U.S. President combination has many upsides. Watching for white smoke. … Trump MMXXVIII!" -- Sen. Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina
************
Catholic community reacts to Trump's AI image of himself as the pope. The AI-generated image shows Trump wearing papal clothes, sitting on a throne.
by Megan Forrester
ABC News
May 5, 2025, 12:29 PM
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/catholi ... =121447607
An AI-generated image of President Donald Trump dressed as the pope is drawing criticism from some Catholics after it was posted on social media just days before the papal conclave to select the next pontiff begins in Rome.
The image, which was shared on Trump's social media and the official White House account on Friday evening, shows an AI-generated image of the president wearing papal clothes and sitting on a throne.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, was asked by reporters about the image after he had finished a service at a church in Rome on Sunday. In his response, Dolan used the Italian words, "brutta figura," meaning the post was embarrassing.
"I hope he didn't have anything to do with it," Dolan said. "It wasn't good. As Italians say, it was brutta figura."
The New York State Catholic Conference also voiced outrage at the image, saying, "There is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President."
"We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us," the conference said on X on Saturday.
Trump said on Monday that it was a joke, and claimed no Catholics were offended.
"They can't take a joke? You don't mean the Catholics, you mean the fake news media? No, the Catholics loved it," Trump said. "I had nothing to do with it. Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the pope and they put it out on the internet. That's not me that did it. I have no idea where it came from. Maybe it was AI, but I know nothing about it. I just saw it last evening. Actually, my wife thought it was cute. She said, 'Isn't that nice?'"
He added, "Actually, I would not be able to be married, though. That would be a lot. ... To the best of my knowledge, popes aren't big on getting married, are they? Not that we know of."
Father James Martin, a papal contributor for ABC, said on "This Week" Sunday, "People were surprised by it and thought it was incredibly poor taste, but over here in Rome more people are concerned about the next pope than the current president."
Vice President JD Vance, who is Catholic, denied the post was offensive. When conservative commentator Bill Kristol wrote on X, "Hey, @JDVance, you fine with this disrespect and mocking of the Holy Father?" the vice president replied, "As a general rule, I'm fine with people telling jokes and not fine with people starting stupid wars that kill thousands of my countrymen."
When asked to respond to the criticism, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump "flew to Italy to pay his respects for Pope Francis and attend his funeral, and he has been a staunch champion for Catholics and religious liberty," according to The Associated Press.
The process to elect the next pope will begin on Wednesday, according to the Vatican.
ABC News' Camilla Alcini contributed to this report.
****************
Trump says he 'had nothing to do with' apparent AI-generated pope image he posted online. The image was posted on Trump's and the White House's social media accounts, sparking criticism from Catholics at home and abroad.
by Clarissa-Jan Lim
msnbc.com
May 6, 2025, 9:30 AM MDT / Updated May 6, 2025, 11:17 AM MDT
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/lates ... rcna205068
President Donald Trump pleaded ignorance to an apparent AI-generated image depicting him as the pope that was posted to his and the White House’s social media accounts, accusing the media of fabricating the backlash over the image.
“You mean they can’t take a joke? You don’t mean the Catholics, you mean the fake news media,” Trump told reporters Monday about the image, which shows him in papal clothing. “No, the Catholics loved it.”
He added: “I had nothing to do with it. Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the pope and they put it out on the internet. That’s not me that did it. I have no idea where it came from. Maybe it was AI. But I know nothing about it.”
Trump’s Truth Social account and the White House’s X account both posted the image Friday night, sparking near-instant criticism from Catholics at home and abroad who said it was offensive.
“There is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President,” the New York State Catholic Conference wrote in a post on X the next morning. “We just buried our beloved Pope Francis and the cardinals are about to enter a solemn conclave to elect a new successor of St. Peter. Do not mock us.”
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, told reporters Sunday that the image was in poor taste. “I hope he didn’t have anything to do with it,” Dolan said about Trump. “It wasn’t good.
Former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi also weighed in. In a post on X, Renzi wrote in Italian that the image “offends believers, insults institutions and shows that the leader of the global right enjoys being a clown.”
Trump also suggested Monday that he first saw the image “last evening.”
“I think it’s the fake news media that — you know, they’re fakers,” he added.
The purported AI image would not have been the first time Trump has suggested he should be pope. Earlier last week, when asked about the papal conclave, Trump said he was his own “number one choice” for the head of the Catholic Church.
Trump jokes that he'd like to be the next pope
by Reuters
April 30, 20255:06 AM MDT Updated 6 days ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump- ... 025-04-29/
WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday joked that he would like to succeed Pope Francis, who died last week at the age of 88.
Trump, asked about whom he'd like to see become the next Catholic pontiff, told reporters: "I'd like to be pope. That would be my No. 1 choice."
Trump noted he actually had no preference, adding, "I must say, we have a cardinal that happens to be out of a place called New York who’s very good, so we’ll see what happens.”
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York, is not on the short list of possible contenders for the top spot, but it does include another American, Cardinal Joseph Tobin, archbishop of Newark, New Jersey. There has never been a pope from the U.S.
Trump and his wife Melania traveled to Rome last weekend to attend the funeral of the first pontiff from Latin America.
The two men had exchanged criticisms over a decade, mostly related to the pope's plea for compassion for migrants, a group Trump has repeatedly sought to deport.
About 135 Catholic cardinals will soon be tasked with entering a secret conclave to choose the next pope, with no clear frontrunner in sight.
Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Colleen Jenkins
As my colleague Steve Benen has pointed out, Trump has tried to evade responsibility for a litany of problems during his second term. From national domestic issues — such as his immigration policy and the Signal group chat debacle — to smaller-scale controversies like the pope image, when faced with any degree of pushback, you can expect Trump to pass the buck.
****************************
Trump Denies Posting Image of Himself as Pope, Laughing Off Critics. The president suggested Catholics, who have criticized the apparently A.I.-generated image, were not offended, and said that anyone who was “can’t take a joke.”
by Aishvarya Kavi
Reporting from Washington
New York Times
Published May 5, 2025
Updated May 6, 2025, 12:21 p.m. ET
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
President Trump said on Monday that he “had nothing to do with” a depiction of himself as the pope that was shared on his and White House social media accounts over the weekend, distancing himself from the apparently A.I.-generated image that has agitated Catholics.
“I had nothing to do with it,” Mr. Trump said while taking questions in the Oval Office. “Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the pope, and they put it out on the internet. That’s not me that did it, I have no idea where it came from — maybe it was A.I. But I have no idea where it came from.”
Mr. Trump, responding to a question about Catholics who are displeased with the image of him dressed in white papal robes and a ceremonial headdress, also attempted to downplay the mounting criticism.
“They can’t take a joke,” Mr. Trump said, quickly telling the reporter, “You don’t mean the Catholics; you mean the fake news media. The Catholics loved it.”
But Catholics across the country, including a prominent American cardinal, have suggested the image is offensive, especially as they mourn the death of Pope Francis. Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, in Rome for the papal conclave, said when asked about the image on Sunday that he hoped it was not the president’s doing.
“I hope he didn’t have anything to do with that,” Cardinal Dolan said. Asked if he was offended by it, the cardinal demurred but called the image a “brutta figura,” meaning it had made a bad impression.
While the president insisted he did not know about the image of himself as pope, it was posted by the White House on X and by his own Truth Social account, which has shared several apparently A.I.-generated images.
Asked by reporters last week who he would like to be pope, Mr. Trump first made the joke that he was his own “No. 1” choice. He then referred to Cardinal Dolan as “a very good” option. (Mr. Dolan is not a likely candidate.)
Mr. Trump is not Catholic, but his wife, Melania Trump, is Roman Catholic. Mrs. Trump was apparently fond of the image of her husband in papal vestments.
“Actually, my wife thought it was cute,” Mr. Trump insisted on Monday in the Oval Office. “She said, ‘Isn’t that nice?’”
Some Catholic leaders in the United States had said the image could be interpreted as a mockery of their faith. “It’s never appropriate to ridicule or mock the papacy,” Dennis Poust, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, the public policy arm for the state’s Catholic bishops, told The New York Times.
Mr. Trump wooed votes from the nation’s Catholics during both of his campaigns, and during the 2024 race, he chose a vice president who converted to Catholicism as an adult. Vice President JD Vance has been open about how his faith informs his politics.
“I’m fine with people telling jokes,” Mr. Vance posted on social media in response to a question about the image.
Aishvarya Kavi works in the Washington bureau of The Times, helping to cover a variety of political and national news.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37503
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Wed May 07, 2025 12:11 am
19 states and D.C. sue Trump administration over mass HHS layoffs
by Joe Walsh
cbsnews.com
Updated on: May 5, 2025 / 5:37 PM EDT / CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/19-states- ... s-layoffs/
Over a dozen states sued the Trump administration Monday for laying off thousands of Health and Human Services staffers, urging a court to reverse job cuts that they argue brought work at large swaths of the Robert F. Kennedy Jr.-led health agency to a "sudden halt."
The lawsuit — filed in Rhode Island federal court by New York, California, 17 other states and Washington, D.C. — claims the Trump administration has sought to "dismantle" HHS through layoffs that disproportionately hit "disfavored work and programs," like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration.
HHS is aiming to cut its headcount by 20,000 — or nearly 25% — through a combination of layoffs, buyouts and early retirement offers, the department announced in March, framing it as a "dramatic restructuring" aimed at making HHS more efficient and cutting redundant or unnecessary services. The cuts are part of a wider initiative by the Trump administration, led by billionaire Elon Musk, to slash the size of the federal government.
Since then, thousands of HHS staff have gotten layoff notices. The cuts have hit large agencies like the FDA and CDC, along with departments that handle mental health, federal poverty guidelines and other services, CBS News has previously reported. Deep cuts are also slated for the National Institutes of Health.
Monday's lawsuit, which names Kennedy and other HHS leaders as defendants, argues these job cuts have "systematically deprived HHS of the resources necessary to do its job."
The layoffs have allegedly cut off the states from data and made it harder to access grants for everything from worker safety to the Head Start preschool program, the lawsuit argues. The suit also says the agency has shuttered key disease testing labs, forcing them to "find new partners to handle their most difficult testing needs that had previously been handled by the CDC."
The states are asking a federal judge to halt Kennedy's directive to reorganize and cut the HHS, arguing the moves exceed HHS's legal authority and violate the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine by slashing programs authorized by Congress.
The suit also takes aim at Kennedy's views, citing his vaccine skepticism and "history of advocating for the evisceration of the Department's statutorily mandated work promoting public health." It also pointed to Kennedy's acknowledgement that 20% of job cuts at the HHS may need to be reversed due to "mistakes."
An HHS spokesperson said in response to the lawsuit, "HHS remains confident that the process will withstand legal scrutiny."
"We are following the law, period. Nothing has been rushed and multiple rounds of discussions between divisions and HHS occurred before the announcement. Every step taken has been deliberate, collaborative, and consistent with federal personnel policy and civil service protections," the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson also defended changes to the agency, saying they "are designed to strengthen the agency's capacity to serve the American public, not weaken it."
Monday's suit is the latest legal action against the Trump administration's cost-cutting drive. Almost two dozen states sued HHS last month for cutting public health grants, and labor unions have sued the government over cuts to other agencies.
by Joe Walsh
cbsnews.com
Updated on: May 5, 2025 / 5:37 PM EDT / CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/19-states- ... s-layoffs/
Over a dozen states sued the Trump administration Monday for laying off thousands of Health and Human Services staffers, urging a court to reverse job cuts that they argue brought work at large swaths of the Robert F. Kennedy Jr.-led health agency to a "sudden halt."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.59507/gov.uscourts.rid.59507.1.0.pdf
The lawsuit — filed in Rhode Island federal court by New York, California, 17 other states and Washington, D.C. — claims the Trump administration has sought to "dismantle" HHS through layoffs that disproportionately hit "disfavored work and programs," like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration.
HHS is aiming to cut its headcount by 20,000 — or nearly 25% — through a combination of layoffs, buyouts and early retirement offers, the department announced in March, framing it as a "dramatic restructuring" aimed at making HHS more efficient and cutting redundant or unnecessary services. The cuts are part of a wider initiative by the Trump administration, led by billionaire Elon Musk, to slash the size of the federal government.
Since then, thousands of HHS staff have gotten layoff notices. The cuts have hit large agencies like the FDA and CDC, along with departments that handle mental health, federal poverty guidelines and other services, CBS News has previously reported. Deep cuts are also slated for the National Institutes of Health.
Monday's lawsuit, which names Kennedy and other HHS leaders as defendants, argues these job cuts have "systematically deprived HHS of the resources necessary to do its job."
The layoffs have allegedly cut off the states from data and made it harder to access grants for everything from worker safety to the Head Start preschool program, the lawsuit argues. The suit also says the agency has shuttered key disease testing labs, forcing them to "find new partners to handle their most difficult testing needs that had previously been handled by the CDC."
The states are asking a federal judge to halt Kennedy's directive to reorganize and cut the HHS, arguing the moves exceed HHS's legal authority and violate the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine by slashing programs authorized by Congress.
The suit also takes aim at Kennedy's views, citing his vaccine skepticism and "history of advocating for the evisceration of the Department's statutorily mandated work promoting public health." It also pointed to Kennedy's acknowledgement that 20% of job cuts at the HHS may need to be reversed due to "mistakes."
An HHS spokesperson said in response to the lawsuit, "HHS remains confident that the process will withstand legal scrutiny."
"We are following the law, period. Nothing has been rushed and multiple rounds of discussions between divisions and HHS occurred before the announcement. Every step taken has been deliberate, collaborative, and consistent with federal personnel policy and civil service protections," the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson also defended changes to the agency, saying they "are designed to strengthen the agency's capacity to serve the American public, not weaken it."
Monday's suit is the latest legal action against the Trump administration's cost-cutting drive. Almost two dozen states sued HHS last month for cutting public health grants, and labor unions have sued the government over cuts to other agencies.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37503
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest