A pair of legal experts sounded the alarm over how the Trump administration plans to use a secret terrorist court.
During a recent podcast episode, former FBI counterterrorism agent Frank Figliuzzi and lawyer and former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa detailed how President Donald Trump and his administration could use the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, which sat dormant for 30 years before a sudden activation earlier this month.
According to Rangappa, the court allows the Trump administration to deport noncitizens from the United States if it can convince a single judge that the defendant is a foreign terrorist. A defendant facing immediate removal would never see the evidence against them, as an attorney general would be able to argue that a person is a terrorist with classified evidence.
"This administration plays pretty fast and loose with who is considered a terrorist," Rangappa said. "It's also possible that it is some rando that was rounded up at Home Depot."
Figliuzzi said that the "darkest possibility" would be, "We've got a left-wing accused terrorist, maybe from overseas, that is now before this court."
The court held its first case earlier this week. The DOJ is seeking to deport a Texas mom through the court because her son and son-in-law were convicted of conspiring to launch an ISIS-inspired terrorist attack, according to reporting by NBC News, which noted that the mom hasn't been charged with a crime.
The two experts pointed to Stephen Miller as the likely Trump official who pitched activating the court, with Rangappa calling it "a Stephen Miller special."
Figliuzzi said he sees elements of the Trump administration's "inherent laziness" and "flexing of power," adding, "Somebody tells them, 'Hey, you got this court that's never been used,' and they go, shoot, let's try it."
Americans living in Trump country are furious about his luxurious lifestyle as they sell their own blood, hunt for free toilet paper, and try not to break down in tears, according to a New York Times report.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof spoke with multiple red-state Americans who say they have pennies in the bank and struggle to buy basic necessities.
"You do not know what you're doing to people who are struggling to live," Oklahoman Trinity Goodman said in comments directed at Trump. "You got money in the bank. You don't know how it feels to struggle. Live in my shoes for one day. You wouldn't be able to handle it."
Goodman told Kristof that she had less than $4 in her checking account and a cent in her savings account to keep it open, calling it her full assets. She said that her food stamps can't go toward buying toilet paper or feminine hygiene products.
She survives by selling her blood plasma twice a week, she said.
"I've never been to a barber or any of those places," Goodman said. "Never. I don't have that luxury."
Kristof noted Trump's cuts to benefits, including to Medicaid, food stamps, and early childhood education, adding the push to cut benefits for struggling Americans is "hard to square with the expense of the Iran war, as well as subsidies for private planes and tax cuts for the wealthiest."
The columnist said he was stunned by trip through America and the pressure caused by inflation and social benefit cuts.
"I talked to so many people who are losing food stamps and other benefits and increasingly desperate — and resentful, understandably, of elites who seem indifferent to their struggles," Kristoff said.
Latoya Foster, 31, a single mother raising six children in Arkansas, told Kristoff she was among those to lose food stamps before she broke down and wept.
“I hit rock bottom daily,” she told Kristoff. “The more I work, the harder stuff gets.”
Retired Army veteran Glayton Johnson went after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in his comments to Kristof, saying that the ousting of Black senior officers has ruined the military's reputation as a path of opportunity for people of color.
"The military is out," he said, saying it's no longer an option for Black Americans. "No, we're not going there."
President Donald Trump's sudden about-face on his so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" stunned critics who argued he threw a dangerous "tantrum" ahead of a crucial political contest.
Trump's Truth Social claim — that he no longer considers his controversial $1.8 billion fund to be "dead," as he asserted at Camp David just the day before — swiftly drew criticism on Saturday morning.
" Trump doesn’t have the votes for this," Bloomberg reporter Steven Dennis. "Republican senators have already voted against the fund, and even more against paying rioters who beat police officers who Trump pardoned."
The president did not address the problem of support in his early morning post, he simply asserted he would "push hard" to get the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" passed.
His assertion came after a vote to confirm acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was delayed by two Republican Sens. Thom Tillis and John Cornyn, both of whom demanded written proof that the fund was dead.
"If Senators Cornyn and Tillis, both upset because I wouldn’t Endorse them (they lost, and quit, respectively!), aren’t going to approve Todd Blanche," Trump wrote, "then I will keep Todd as Acting A.G., and push hard to get the Anti-Weaponization Bill."
NBC correspondent Julie Tsirkin responded Saturday morning with a social media post quietly supportive of the senators' push for physical proof the fund was off the table.
"President Trump’s insistence that his anti-weaponization fund is not only not going away, but now he wants LEGISLATION to codify it, is exactly why Senators Cornyn and Tillis wouldn’t take Todd Blanche’s word for it," she wrote.
"Great messaging ahead of the midterms," the group quipped.
Tara Setmayer, CEO of the Democratic super PAC Seneca Project, argued Trump had just made a proven liar out of the man he wants to lead the Department of Justice.
"Trump throws another temper tantrum and vows to fight for the Jan 6th slush fund to be passed," she wrote. "Totally confirming the fund was never 'dead' like Blanche claimed. This is why Cornyn & Tillis couldn’t get it in writing. This is outrageous and should be a campaign issue."
George Conway, the longstanding Trump critic, took aim at his old foe's mental stamina.
"Trump is utterly, completely detached from reality," he wrote.
Tillis (R-NC) vowed to block Blanche's nomination over what he described as Trump's "payout for punks."
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) has rung a potential death knell for Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's Senate confirmation.
Tillis, in post on X Saturday morning, said that he won't vote to confirm Blanche as attorney general after President Donald Trump wrote a Truth Social rant declaring his controversial anti-weaponization fund wasn't dead.
"Despite comments as late as yesterday that the fund is dead, President Trump clearly intends to resurrect the payout pot for punks," Tillis wrote. "It’s unfortunate that Todd Blanche, who I consider qualified for the job, will not be confirmed because of this reversal."
Tillis added, "Hopefully, we can resolve this by Tuesday."
Blanche can't afford to lose even one vote from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as every Democrat on the GOP-led committee is expected to vote against him.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has also cast doubt on whether he'll vote for Blanche. Tillis demanded that Blanche meet with Epstein survivors to secure his vote, but survivors say that the meeting didn't go well.
Blanche's confirmation vote was supposed to be held earlier this week, but it was delayed. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement it was delayed to give time to shore up the votes.
The $1.776 anti-weaponization fund, which critics worry will pay Trump allies and Jan. 6 rioters, has been hurting Blanche's chances as well. Senators have asked him to put in writing his vow that the fund is dead, but Blanche has refused.
Trump said it was "dead" in a press briefing on Friday, but in his Saturday morning Truth Social post, he wrote that he'll "push hard to get the Anti-Weaponization Bill...PASSED."
In his angry retort, Tillis called the fund "bogus."
Concern is mounting among high-ranking Republicans that the next generation of conservatives consists primarily of "rabid" "idiot" Nazis, according to a new report.
GOP veterans have begun to fret that the pipeline feeding young conservative "talent" into government job has collapsed under the pressure of a Trumpist ideology that prefers sycophancy to smarts, Politico reported Saturday.
“We have a generation of rabid, incompetent idiots," a senior GOP congressional staffer told Politico. "The organizations that bring young staffers to Washington, D.C. have spent the last decade prioritizing blind ideological loyalty instead of competence or intelligence."
Politco argues the concerns amount to more than middle-aged griping about "kids these days."
As organizations such as the Heritage Foundation have adapted their conservative beliefs to fit the MAGA mold, they've attracted a group of young people with serious problems, sources told Politico.
Those sources include four senior Republican congressional staffers, think tank scholars, Heritage expats, academics and up-and-coming young Republicans.
"Critics fear a decline of merit and skill," Politico reported, "along with a tolerance for darker ideologies that could cripple the party’s ability to govern in the long run."
The biggest problem for these conservatives are "groypers" — followers of the white nationalist holocaust denier Nick Fuentes and fellow anti-establishment right-wingers, according to the report.
"Prominent conservative commentators have alleged that groyperism is spreading among younger members of the GOP, including in government — a view seemingly backed by examples like the young Trump administration lawyer who admitted to a 'Nazi streak' in text messages revealed by POLITICO," the report stated.
"Others point to social-media posts from official government accounts that echo the language or memes of the online far right."
Meanwhile young Republicans argue their elders are using groyperism complaints to dismiss their frustrations with the party's relationship with Israel.
Marty Bertao, a Berkeley senior and president of the College Republicans of America, told Politico, "there is not this mass groyper issue."
Rachel Bovard, the VP of programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute, added, "They’re counting as ‘groyper’ anyone who’s remotely anti-Israel.”
E.J. Fagan, an associate professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, fears the problem isn't specifically groypers but social media — and pointed to E.J. Antoni, a Heritage economist, as proof.
President Donald Trump nominated Antoni to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but later rescinded after reports surfaced that Antoni ran a deleted X account that hurled sexual insults at former Vice President Kamala Harris.
Another source argued the problem is, as Politico described it, "a generation hooked on the conspiratorial musings of Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens."
“Five, eight years from now," the source said, "if we’re reliant on people with this view of the world, we’re in serious trouble.”
Just hours after President Donald Trumpfinally admitted his $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" was "dead," he promised he would "push hard" to get it passed.
Trump took to Truth Social early Saturday morning to defend the controversial fund and slam two Republicans — Sens. John Cornyn and Thom Tillis — who have vowed to block acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's confirmation until they receive written proof it's dead.
"If Senators Cornyn and Tillis, both upset because I wouldn’t Endorse them (they lost, and quit, respectively!), aren’t going to approve Todd Blanche," Trump wrote, "then I will keep Todd as Acting A.G., and push hard to get the Anti-Weaponization Bill."
"It will immediately be back on the table," Trump said, "and I will get it done."
Trump's complaint — that Jan. 6 rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol in a failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election had been "badly treated — also included a jab at his Democratic predecessors: "Crooked Joe Biden (and Obuma!)"
Blanche, the criminal prosecutor who in 2024 failed to protect Trump from a criminal conviction in New York City, was described as "a voice of reason" Trump vowed to keep on in acting role.
This post arrived just hours after Trump told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce the fund was "dead."
"Well, it is dead, but you know I wish it weren't, to be honest with you," Trump said. "I think people were horribly treated, horribly abused."
The Judiciary Committee postponed voting Blanche's nomination this week amid resistance from Cornyn and Tillis, both of whom will leave the Senate in January.
Cornyn (R-TX) has stated publicly he believes Trump will face strong resistance in the Senate.
"POTUS is mistaken if he believes concerns about the provisions in his tax lawsuit settlement are limited to me and Senator Tillis," Cornyn wrote on X.
"The criminals who assaulted police officers and defiled our nation’s Capitol are not 'great American patriots' who are 'victims of government abuse,'" Tillis wrote on X.
"Anyone who attacked law enforcement should still be in prison, not getting a check from the federal government."
Update: About 30 minutes after Trump posted to Truth Social, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance unearthed an appeal he filed in the Trump v. IRS case on July 31.
"If the $1.776b slush fund and Trump tax immunity deal are really dead," she wrote on X, "then why bother to appeal, the judges decision in Trump v IRS that ruled they were dead?"
President Donald Trump's social media posts have been compared to sex work by a fuming critic who issued a dire warning.
Dylan Hedler-Gaudette, a federal ethics rule expert from Project on Government Oversight, raised the alarm about a new Truth Social initiative to offer sneak peeks of Trump's posts to Wall Street traders willing to pay, the Washington Post reported Saturday.
“The pimping of specific companies — obviously Wall Street would like to know that before other people,” said Hedler-Gaudette. “It’s a real mess.”
Truth API, set to launch Aug. 1, charges hedge funds and high-frequency trading firms up to $100,000 a month for milliseconds-faster access to Trump's Truth Social posts.
Trump owns about 41 percent of Trump Media, which means nearly half of every subscription fee flows directly to him, Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has warned.
On Saturday, the Post reported Trump has begun posting more frequently about publicly traded companies — and when he issues praise he ignites "buying frenzies."
Trump's recent approving post of Palantir Technologies and Intel both saw stock prices peak, the Post reported.
It's not uncommon for social media firms to sell faster speed — but other social media firms are not run by the president, the report notes.
"Truth Social doesn’t just distribute the news, it makes it, regularly rattling markets as Trump posts policy changes on everything from war to central bank leadership to tariffs," the Post reported.
Irene Aldridge, head of Able Alpha Trading, told the Post that's why her firm won't be buying early access to Truth Social.
“If this was the CEO a public company, this would be jail time,” said Aldridge. “We have a President of the United States who has the front seat to all the action, who makes all the decisions, and he’s disclosing this ahead of time to a select group.”
The Post was unable to identify which firms have signed up for the feed.
"Asked for comment, none of the half dozen most well known high-speed traders such as Citadel Securities and XTX Markets replied," the Post reported. "If just three sign up for the $100,000 a month fee, that would double revenue at Trump Media, which reported taking in $3.7 million last year."
Update: About 30 minutes after Trump published his vow on Truth Social, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance shared with her followers court records filed July 31 — the president's appeal to the Trump v IRS case.
"If the $1.776b slush fund and Trump tax immunity deal are really dead," Vance wrote, "then why bother to appeal, the judges decision in Trump v IRS that ruled they were dead?
A prominent MAGA lawyer bankrolled an election denier now working inside the Trump administration, according to tax filings.
According to reporting by Democracy Docket, a dark money fund run by election denier and anti-voting attorney Cleta Mitchell granted just over $72,000 in the last fiscal year to Heather Honey. Democracy Docket described Honey as an "election conspiracy theorist" hired by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to oversee election integrity.
Mitchell granted the money through her Foundation for Accountability, Integrity and Research in Elections Fund. Honey accepted the money through her company, Verity Vote, for consulting and research services, according to tax filings reviewed by Democracy Docket.
In fiscal year 2024, Honey's company took in more than $120,000 from Mitchell's fund, Democracy Docket added. Honey is also listed as the vice president and director of Mitchell's fund, and Honey founded a Pennsylvania group that operates under Mitchell's Election Integrity Network, according to Democracy Docket.
Mitchell and Honey have a long history of undermining election security and spreading false voter fraud claims, according to Democracy Docket. DHS appointed Honey in August 2025 to a newly created post in its election integrity division, and two months later, the watchdog group American Oversight sued DHS for hiring her.
The American Oversight lawsuit pointed out that Honey suggested that Trump could seize control of elections from states by declaring a national emergency, Democracy Docket reported.
"Transparency about Honey's appointment and tenure is key to understanding who is tasked with overseeing our election infrastructure," American Oversight wrote about its lawsuit. "The records at issue in our lawsuit could show how Trump and his allies intend to undermine, and potentially subvert, the security of future elections."
Mitchell, meanwhile, keeps working to restrict voting from outside government, Democracy Docket noted. Her fund tripled its grant spending last fiscal year on election-denial groups, according to reporting by Sludge, and the Guardian reported that some used the money for deceptive 2024 election ads, including some aimed at Spanish-speaking voters.
Senior Trump administration officials are "furious" about a new dress code for an embattled federal agency, a journalist revealed.
In a Friday post on X, reporter Anna Giaritelli shared that senior Trump administration officials and officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are "furious with changes to ICE's dress code."
According to reporting by The Intercept, the new dress code bans ICE agents from wearing jeans, sweatshirts, hoodies, non-collared shirts, and T-shirts displaying graphics while they're working in public spaces. Giaritelli wrote in her reporting for the Washington Examiner that the new guidelines went into place on July 17.
The Intercept noted in its reporting that the new dress code came "in direct response" to a pair of deadly shootings by ICE agents in Maine and Texas, as well as a botched arrest attempt by two plainclothes ICE agents at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas on July 13.
Giaritelli posted that senior Trump administration officials and ICE officers are now complaining "it could lead to more assaults against federal police because of how easy they will be to spot in polo shirts and khaki tactical pants."
However, online commentators showed their support for the dress code. In an X post reacting to Giaritelli's post, policy analyst Sarah Pierce said, "Heaven forbid the public know that it is a law enforcement officer that is questioning, arresting or shooting them."
"I am obviously sympathetic to concerns of officer safety," wrote immigration policy analyst Aaron Reichlin-Melnick. "But I find ICE's claim to need to be in hiding particularly strange in light of every other law enforcement agency in the country that manages to do its job with its officers in uniform."
The Trump administration's threat to a program meant to pull kids out of poverty is alarming advocates, the New York Times reported.
According to reporting by The Times, the Trump administration is teeing up a "major rollback" of the federal requirements for Head Start, an early education and antipoverty program created in 1965. Advocates and experts told The Times that the rollback threatens to upend the 60-year-old program.
Ruth Friedman, a child care policy expert, told The Times that the proposed changes to Head Start are a "massive gutting." The Times noted that the program currently serves about 700,000 kids under the age of 6 and has served more than 30 million children since 1965.
The White House is eyeing changes that would remove most of Head Start's requirements for math and literacy curricula, class sizes, medical screenings, home visits, and even that children brush their teeth after meals, according to The Times, which spoke with three anonymous sources familiar with the plan.
"Eliminating Head Start's performance standards guts the science-backed standards that ensure our youngest learners get what they need to arrive at kindergarten ready to succeed," Friedman said.
The White House last year called the Head Start program "radical" as it tried to cut off spending for it, and a White House budget document said that ending Head Start would help end the "radical indoctrination of our children," The Times noted. An anonymous White House official told The Times that the federal funding for Head Start will stay in place, and that the Trump administration will support efforts to reduce the administrative burden of running it.
In what Democratic Sen. Patty Murray described as a “slap in the face to moms and dads,” Republicans have blocked her proposed resolution to restore a rule that could have saved low-income parents thousands of dollars per year on childcare before the Trump administration axed it.
Under a rule that went into effect earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rescinded a Biden-era rule that capped families’ copayments at 7% of their household income for the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which helps about 994,000 low-income families pay for childcare so parents can work, attend school, or participate in job training.
The program is administered at the state level, and under the abandoned rule that was enacted in 2024, all states were required to begin phasing in the 7% cap, which is considered a federal affordability benchmark.
Under the Trump policy change, states will not be required to cap parents’ copayments as long as they continue to use a sliding scale based on income level and don’t present a “barrier” to receiving assistance, though it’s not specified what that means.
As of March 2026, 19 states had not lowered their maximum copayment to 7%.
An April analysis by the Center for American Progress found that, by eliminating the federal cap, families in 10 states that have not enacted it would lose between $450 and more than $15,000 in potential annual savings, depending on how high their state sets the threshold.
In Ohio, which caps copayments at 27% of household income, families could lose up to $15,482 in annual savings under the maximum copayment. In Vermont, which caps copayments at 14.9% of household income, families could lose up to $11,712.
Murray (D-Wash), the former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), introduced a resolution last month under the Congressional Review Act, which would have nullified the administration’s elimination of the 7% cap.
It also would have restored other Biden-era requirements that were reversed under the same rule, including requirements that states pay childcare providers based on enrollment rather than attendance, pay them in advance, and use grants and contracts to fund childcare for infants, children with disabilities, and those in underserved communities.
In a speech on the Senate floor before the resolution came to a procedural vote on Thursday, she told her colleagues bluntly, “You are either voting to lower childcare costs or to increase them.”
She challenged the senators who planned to vote against the resolution to “go home and tell the parents in your state you voted to raise their childcare bill,” adding that “you cannot call yourself pro-family while voting to make it more expensive to raise one.”
In a party-line vote on Friday, the bill was blocked from advancing by a margin of 52-47, with every Republican voting against it except for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is absent after being hospitalized in June.
After the vote failed, Murray described it as an example of Republicans taking money away from American families struggling to afford the basics of life while pushing for lavish spending on war and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
“How about instead of a $1.5 trillion war budget, we make sure every working family in America can afford childcare?” Murray said. “If Trump had simply done nothing, and left the 7% cap in place, some of these families would have ended up saving as much as $15,000 a year for their family.”
According to a Century Foundation analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, childcare costs increased by 5% from August 2024 to August 2025 and now average more than $13,000 per child per year across age groups.
Trump has been surprisingly open about the fact that, under his control, and in direct contrast with his campaign promises, the federal government is prioritizing spending on his war in Iran instead of providing government subsidies for Americans’ basic needs, including daycare.
“We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare,” he said during a speech in April. “You gotta let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.”
“Trump says we can’t afford childcare. But he is wrong,” said Murray, who has co-introduced legislation to expand federal childcare subsidies and cover nearly all costs for low-income families. “The truth is we can’t afford to ignore childcare.”
The Trump administration suffered its 19th straight court loss in its crusade to seize state voter rolls, per a report.
An Illinois-based federal judge tossed a Department of Justice lawsuit that demanded the state's unredacted voter rolls. U.S. District Judge Colleen Lawless wrote in her opinion that amending the complaint would be "futile" and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it can't be revived in district court.
Democracy Docket noted in its reporting that the "brutal" loss came two days after another federal judge dismissed the DOJ's lawsuit seeking New Jersey voter rolls.
Illinois had already provided the DOJ with its redacted voter rolls, Democracy Docket noted, but the DOJ lawsuit sought sensitive identifying information, including driver's license and Social Security numbers.
Lawless stressed, in her opinion, that the attorney general has to state a "legitimate purpose" to demand voter rolls. If an AG could simply justify a demand for voter rolls with a statement of any purpose, the current statutory requirement "would be pointless and it would provide him with unfettered authority to demand voting records."
The DOJ argued in its lawsuit that the Civil Rights Act of 1960 requires states to hand over voter rolls and federal voter records that came into their possession. Lawless, however, noted that the executive director of the Illinois Board of Elections created the voter rolls.
"An ordinary English speaker would not say that she has come into possession of something that she created, established, and maintained," Lawless wrote. "Instead, the election officials are required to preserve records that come into their possession from outside sources."
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is being pressured to backtrack after an airstrike gone wrong, according to The Atlantic.
The Pentagon is moving towards restoring as many as half of the roles that Hegseth cut during a "pugnacious" purge at the Department of Defense, according to reporting by The Atlantic. Hegseth's downsizing included the firing or reassignment of staff dedicated to avoiding civilian casualties in war, the reporting noted.
"The potential reversal, which hasn't previously been reported, now awaits Hegseth's signature," according to The Atlantic. The Pentagon is considering bringing back staff as it deals with the fallout of an airstrike that killed almost 170 people, most of them children, at a school in southern Iran, The Atlantic reported.
The Atlantic also noted that Hegseth said early in the conflict that the U.S. would fight with "no stupid rules of engagement" and "no politically correct wars."
An anonymous Pentagon official confirmed to The Atlantic that the DoD is "currently undergoing a strategic reassessment to inform its future reorganization."
A Pentagon inspector general report this spring determined that the DoD's cuts to civilian-harm protections may have violated laws designed to protect noncombatants, The Atlantic reported. Leaders of the Pentagon's combatant commands also support the restoration of personnel who can safeguard against civilian casualties, a U.S. official told The Atlantic.
"Over the last year, we have seen a total disconnect between the willingness to wage wars all over the world, at an unprecedented pace and scale, while at the same time all but abandoning their leading role in setting up the systems and approaches needed to better protect civilians," Emily Tripp, the head of Airwars, an independent UK-based watchdog, told The Atlantic.
Keep reading...Show less
Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Raw Story Investigates and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.
