Federal appeals court blocks West Texas A&M drag ban
The 2-1 decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asserts the university acted unconstitutionally when it canceled student-organized charity drag performances in 2023 and 2024. In a March 2023 email to students, faculty and staff titled, 'A Harmless Drag Show? No Such Thing,' University President Walter Wendler said drag discriminates against women and compared it to blackface.
'West Texas A&M University will not host a drag show on campus,' Wendler wrote in the email, which also referenced his Christian religious beliefs. The school, part of the Texas A&M University System, is public and not religiously affiliated.
'I will not appear to condone the diminishment of any group at the expense of impertinent gestures toward another group for any reason, even when the law of the land appears to require it,' Wendler wrote. He added that students should donate directly to the Trevor Project, the LGBTQ youth suicide prevention organization that was to be the drag show's beneficiary.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) sued Wendler and West Texas A&M in 2023 on behalf of Spectrum WT, the LGBTQ student group behind the drag show, 'A Fool's Drag Race,' that Wendler canceled. He canceled another of the group's drag performances in 2024, citing his 2023 email and a new Texas law restricting 'sexually oriented performances.'
A district court judge denied FIRE and Spectrum WT's motion for a preliminary injunction in 2023. In 2024, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case following a request for emergency action by the student group.
In Thursday's 5th Circuit ruling, Judge Leslie H. Southwick, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote that theatrical performances, including drag shows, 'plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment.'
'President Wendler did not argue, either before the district court or on appeal, that restricting the intended drag show would survive strict scrutiny,' Southwick wrote on Monday. 'Based on the record before us, the district court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.'
Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney for the plaintiffs at FIRE, said in a statement that the organization is 'overjoyed that our clients will now be able to express themselves freely, and we'll be watching to make sure that President Wendler obeys the law of the land while the case proceeds.'
'This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors,' said JT Morris, FIRE's senior supervising attorney.
A spokesperson for West Texas A&M University did not immediately return a request for comment.
The ruling comes several months after a federal judge handed a victory to another student-led LGBTQ group that sued the Texas A&M University System and its flagship earlier this year over a policy banning drag performances on each of its 11 campuses.
The university system's Board of Regents voted almost unanimously in February to adopt a resolution that states drag events are inconsistent with the system's 'mission and core values, including the value of respect for others.' The resolution cites an executive order from President Trump that proclaims the U.S. recognizes only two unchangeable sexes, male and female, and aims to prevent federal spending on 'gender ideology.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
20 minutes ago
- NBC News
U.S. trans woman challenges Dutch asylum rejection
AMSTERDAM — A 28-year-old transgender woman from the U.S. began a legal challenge on Wednesday to the rejection of her asylum application in the Netherlands where she had sought political asylum saying she no longer felt safe in the United States. Veronica Clifford-Carlos, a visual artist from California, came to the Netherlands — the first country to legalize same-sex marriage and known for its strong protections of LGBTQ rights — because the Trump administration's policies towards transgender people made her feel unsafe, her lawyer's office said. The case, the first of its kind in the Netherlands, will be heard in a court in Amsterdam starting Wednesday, with a ruling expected in four to six weeks. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has issued executive orders limiting transgender rights, banned transgender people from serving in the armed forces, and rescinded anti-discrimination policies for LGBTQ people. Dutch advocacy group LGBT Asylum Support, which backs the lawsuit, is currently assisting around 20 U.S. trans individuals with pending asylum claims. According to data from the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), 29 Americans applied for asylum in the Netherlands during the first half of this year. In previous years there were between nine and 18 applicants per year, an IND spokesperson said. 'The IND generally states that discrimination by authorities and fellow citizens can be considered an act of persecution if it is so severe that victims can no longer function socially and societally,' LGBT Asylum Support said in a statement. 'But the IND maintains that there are no grounds for exceptional treatment of transgender and queer refugees from the U.S.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who's questioning women's right to vote?
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivers remarks at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on June 10, 2025. (Daniel Torok/The White House) This story was originally reported by Mariel Padilla, Grace Panetta and Mel Leonor Barclay of The 19th. Meet Mariel, Grace and Mel and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy. 'In my ideal society, we would vote as households,' a pastor tells CNN. 'And I would ordinarily be the one that would cast the vote, but I would cast the vote having discussed it with my household.' Another agrees, saying he'd back an end to a woman's right to vote: 'I would support that, and I'd support it on the basis that the atomization that comes with our current system is not good for humans.' The discussion of 19th Amendment rights was part of a news segment focused on Doug Wilson — a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist pastor based in Idaho — that was reposted to X by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The secretary is among Wilson's supporters, and his involvement with Wilson's denomination highlights how a fringe conservative evangelical Christian belief system that questions women's right to vote is gaining more traction in the Republican Party. Kristin Du Mez, a professor of history at Calvin University and author of 'Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation,' said Wilson's broader vision of Christian nationalism has gotten more attention over the past several years, alongside President Donald Trump's rise to power. 'He was a fairly fringe figure, but this moment was really his moment,' she said. 'And then as part of that, also, I think he signaled and gave permission to others that they didn't need to hide some of their more controversial views, such as, should women have the vote? And that's something that you didn't hear proudly promoted from very many spaces, even just a handful of years ago.' In the CNN interview, Wilson said he'd like to see the United States become a Christian and patriarchal country. He advocates for a society where sodomy is criminalized and women submit to their husbands and shouldn't serve in combat roles in the military — a belief Hegseth has also publicly shared in the past though walked back during his confirmation hearings. Hegseth appeared to support the nearly seven-minute interview with the caption, 'All of Christ for All of Life.' Wilson has built an evangelical empire over the past 50 years that is centered in Moscow, Idaho, and now spans more than 150 congregations across four continents — including a new church in Washington, D.C. In July, Hegseth and his family attended the inaugural service at Christ Church, according to CNN. 'The Secretary is a proud member of a church affiliated with the Congregation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), which was founded by Pastor Doug Wilson,' Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement to The 19th. 'The Secretary very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson's writings and teachings.' Du Mez said Wilson built his brand as a vocal critic of mainstream evangelicalism. 'They were too wishy washy,' Du Mez said, referring to Wilson's view of much of White evangelicalism in the 1990s and early 2000s. 'They were too soft. And so he was kind of bringing a harsher biblical truth, and that included things like a much more rigid application of biblical patriarchy. ' In 2024, only 1 in 10 Americans qualified as Christian nationalism adherents, according to the Public Religion Research Institute. Ryan Dawkins, an assistant professor of political science at Carleton College, said Christian nationalism hasn't necessarily gotten more popular in the past 20 years. But there have been partisan trends. 'While they used to be more evenly divided between the two parties, over the last two decades, Christian nationalists have sorted into the Republican Party at incredibly high rates,' Dawkins said. 'Christian nationalism is almost non-existent within the Democratic Party today, at least among White Democrats.' While it's still far from a mainstream opinion, several figures within the Republican Party have flirted with the idea of repealing the 19th Amendment. Paul Ingrassia, who Trump nominated to lead the Office of Special Counsel, suggested approval for the idea in a 2023 podcast. Podcast host Alan Jacoby told Ingrassia that his own wife is the 'biggest misogynist this side of the Mississippi, by the way. My wife literally thinks women should not vote.' Ingrassia responded, 'She's very based,' a term expressing support for a bold opinion. During the 2020 Republican National Convention, Republicans featured anti-abortion activist Abby Johnson, who has advocated for a new kind of voting system where households, not individuals, would cast votes. Head-of-household voting has historically disenfranchised women and people of color by concentrating power on the male leaders of the home. In the leadup to the 2016 presidential election, FiveThirtyEight, a political forecasting site, shared data that suggested if women didn't vote, Trump would win. The hashtag #repealthe19th — a reference to the 19th Amendment, which grants women the right to vote — quickly went viral. And a former Trump-backed Michigan candidate for the U.S. House who has also held positions in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was found to have made statements criticizing women's suffrage while in college at Stanford University in the early 2000s. John Gibbs, now an assistant secretary at the agency, said that the country had been damaged by the 19th Amendment because women's suffrage had led to an increase in the size and scope of the government. He added that women making up half of the population wasn't enough reason for women's suffrage. Gibbs' 2022 congressional campaign denied he opposed women's right to vote. Kelly Marino, associate teaching professor at Sacred Heart University and author of 'Votes for College Women: Alumni, Students and the Woman Suffrage Campaign' said that while conservative religious sects adamantly opposed to women's suffrage have always existed, now there is renewed momentum. 'If you look at the way things played out in the past, we have this very liberal period followed by a conservative backlash,' Marino said. 'And that's what's going on now. You have this period of liberalism where people were having a more expansive view of gender ideology, ideas about sexuality and women in politics. We had some pretty prominent female politicians that were making it pretty far in the last couple of years. And now there's a backlash.' Marino said the conservative backlash is reminiscent of the 1960s and 70s. There were significant progressive movements for civil rights, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights and environmental protections. But at the same time, the early 1970s saw the emergence of the men's liberation movement, which focused primarily on issues like divorce law and child custody. 'There's some men who are promoting a sort of return to tradition, a patriarchal vision for society,' Marino said. 'It's always sort of there, but it's gaining traction within mainstream consciousness again. And now, you have all this stuff about soft girls and tradwives — this gender ideal of women being the domestic homemaker within a traditional family structure. There's been a big push for this radical Christianity and some of its values — it's become really popular even among younger people.' Joseph Slaughter, an assistant professor of history at Wesleyan University, said Wilson is having his moment in the spotlight — but it's important to remember that he does not speak for the majority. 'He delights in upsetting people or saying transgressive, un-PC things,' Slaughter said. 'Ten years ago, when he posted a video talking about man's biblical duties — people just sort of yawned and dismissed him. Now, he's saying things and they're gaining more currency because of some of this other new right-wing masculinity and the online manosphere.' Slaughter said it's particularly concerning that Wilson's teachings have found their support in a man as powerful as Hegseth. 'What does it mean for somebody who's running an organization which has had its struggles over the years integrating women and trying to understand existential questions about women's role in combat?' Slaughter said. 'Are Hegseth's views reinforced by his religion now? Does this church reinforce his cultural chauvinism? For somebody in his position, it's certainly fair game to ask.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Bailey, Bongino tag team FBI leadership role
President Trump is bringing in backup at the FBI, installing a staunch legal ally in a newly created leadership post. Andrew Bailey, Missouri's attorney general, is joining the Justice Department as co-deputy director of the FBI — a position he'll hold alongside Dan Bongino, a longtime backer of the president whose role in the administration has become more tenuous as it grapples with Jeffrey Epstein fallout. As Missouri's top prosecutor, Bailey positioned himself as a warrior for conservative causes, mounting challenges to abortion rights, Big Tech, student loan forgiveness and more. Last year, he took the Biden administration to the Supreme Court over its 'vast censorship enterprise,' asserting that federal officials violated the First Amendment by urging platforms to remove posts they deemed false or misleading. The justices denied the challenge brought by Bailey by finding he did not have legal standing, leaving the First Amendment issues untouched. Bailey also came to Trump's defense as the president faced criminal prosecution. Following Trump's conviction last year on 34 counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan, the Missouri attorney general sued New York, saying the prosecution stepped on the rights of his state's voters. He asked the Supreme Court — which has exclusive jurisdiction over legal disputes between two or more states — to block Trump's sentencing and a gag order until after the 2024 election. The justices rejected the plea. 'As Missouri's Attorney General, he took on the swamp, fought weaponized government, and defended the Constitution,' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was Trump's attorney in the hush money case, said Monday of Bailey. 'Now he is bringing that fight to DOJ.' It's not the first time Trump has made Bailey couple up. Trump last year endorsed both Bailey and his primary opponent, Will Scharf, as they competed to become Missouri attorney general. Scharf was one of Trump's personal attorneys, and after losing to Bailey, he joined Trump's White House as staff secretary. You may recognize Scharf as the person who now hands Trump executive orders to sign in the Oval Office. It's not apparent how Bailey's responsibilities at the FBI will be newly split with Bongino, but the appointment of a co-deputy director seems to minimize Bongino's role. It comes amid reported tensions surrounding Bongino over the administration's handling of the Epstein files. Bongino, like dozens of right-wing internet figures, was on the front lines of conspiracy theories about Epstein, the disgraced financier who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. After the Justice Department last month issued a joint memo stating Epstein did not have a client list and confirming he died by suicide, Bongino erupted. Several news outlets reported he weighed resigning over the handling of the matter and raged at agency leaders, including Attorney General Pam Bondi. Trump told reporters last month that he still has confidence in him. Bongino's path to the FBI looked very different than Bailey's. A right-wing podcaster, Bongino was tapped as the sole deputy FBI director in February after spending years as one of the bureau's loudest critics. His career began in 1995 with the New York Police Department, and years later, he joined the U.S. Secret Service, where he eventually was placed on presidential protective duty for former Presidents George W. Bush and Obama. After leaving the Secret Service in 2011, he launched several failed political campaigns before his career as an internet provocateur took off. Despite their different paths, both Bongino and Bailey have something in common. Neither has previously worked for the FBI, breaking the tradition of selecting someone who has risen through the agency's ranks. Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill's weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Click above to email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). IN FOCUS Could TikTok kill Trump's national security legal defense? Two former Supreme Court advocates for the government warned Monday that the Trump administration's efforts to defend itself in court by pointing to national security could face an unexpected hindrance: TikTok. The Gavel joined judges and lawyers in Chicago on Monday at the annual conference for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Though Justice Amy Coney Barrett was pegged as a headliner, she spoke for less than three minutes that evening, opting to shy away from politics. The afternoon conversation between former Solicitors General Elizabeth Prelogar and Paul Clement proved more interesting. Prelogar and Clement pointed to the China-owned social media behemoth as reason Trump's legal defense might falter. In January, the Supreme Court upheld a law requiring TikTok's China-based parent company, ByteDance, to divest from the app or face a ban from U.S. app stores. The law was passed amid concerns the Chinese government could access Americans' data or manipulate the short-form video app's content algorithm to execute a covert influence operation. Clement, solicitor general during the younger Bush's second term, noted that Congress addressed the high-profile issue by pointing to the 'national security imperative to do something.' The statute was defended in part on that basis. 'But then the national security imperative, I guess, wasn't quite as imperative,' Clement said. Despite the high court's decision to let the law go into effect, the Biden administration said it would not enforce it ahead of Trump's inauguration. Trump has since kept enforcement on hold. 'I do think that that could have some long-term consequences when the administration, in subsequent cases, comes up to the Supreme Court and says, 'We really need to do something extraordinary for national security,'' Clement said. Prelogar, who was former President Biden 's solicitor general and argued the case for his administration, agreed. She called it a 'rare event' to litigate a 'seminal' Supreme Court decision to victory and see no 'real application' immediately. The president's decision to let TikTok remain operative, despite the national security risks expressed by the previous administration and Congress, could have consequences. 'Not only did the government make those arguments, but the court arguably relied on them, which could come back to haunt the government as it seeks to get the court's deference on national security issues going forward,' she said. The Trump administration has repeatedly pointed to national security as the president's sweeping agenda has faced legal challenges, namely in four Big Law firms' bids to deem illegal Trump's executive orders targeting them. Clement represents the law firm WilmerHale in its lawsuit. The conversation came amid the pair's review of the Supreme Court's major decisions this term — some argued by Prelogar herself. They spoke to a jam-packed ballroom in a hotel near Chicago's Magnificent Mile. Of the TikTok case, Prelogar said it was one of few her two sons watched closely. But when her 14-year-old son's friends asked 'which side' she would argue, he 'froze,' she joked, not willing to expose his mother's role in restricting the platform. 'There wasn't a ban,' she jokingly insisted. The Supreme Court advocates also commented on the justices' increasingly bloated emergency docket, especially now as challenges to Trump's sweeping agenda reach the high court in troves. They noted that the influx of emergency applications has not only changed the 'rhythm' of the court — but also the office of the solicitor general. 'There's a night and day difference in how the office functions,' Prelogar said. Clement suggested that his office filed only a 'couple' emergency applications during the younger Bush's presidency. Prelogar said she thinks the Trump administration has already filed as many emergency applications as she did in her four years in the office. 'And I felt like I was doing a lot,' she said. Trump pursues voting machine war as Newsmax settles Trump is returning to his war on mail-in ballots and voting machines ahead of next year's midterms, signaling plans to sign a new executive order that would ban them. 'Remember, the States are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,' Trump wrote Monday on Truth Social. 'They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.' Meeting with Ukraine's president in the Oval Office hours later, Trump doubled down on his push. The order's text remains to be seen, but if it's anything like what Trump has described, expect Democrats to challenge it. 'The President almost certainly has no authority to dictate how states conduct their elections, and his proposals run counter to the Constitution's Elections Clause,' New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D) said in a statement. Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar (D) responded similarly when we asked him for comment, noting that mail ballots are the top choice for voters in the key swing state. 'Nevada runs safe, secure elections and we will stand up against any attempts to silence the voices of our citizens,' Aguilar said in a statement. Trump's announcement came the same day that Newsmax announced it will pay voting machine company Dominion Voting Systems $67 million to settle its lawsuit over the conservative channel's 2020 election coverage. It's the latest sum for Dominion, which two years ago secured an eye-popping $787-million settlement from Fox News over its coverage. The president has long declared war on mail ballots and voting machines, asserting unfounded accusations that they sparked widespread voter fraud in his 2020 loss. More than four years later, Trump has continued to press the issue in his second term, supported by allies like MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. In an interview with The Gavel last month, Lindell was bullish about getting rid of voting machines. 'Mike wants to melt down the electronic voting machines and turn them into prison bars. That's what Mike wants, and that's what Mike's going to end up getting, is these machines will be gone,' Lindell told us. He was spotted at the White House the next day. Trump's forthcoming order appears to be the president's latest front on voting ahead of next year's midterms, when Republicans hope to maintain their control of both chambers of Congress. The president signed an executive order in March that asserts greater presidential control over elections and seeks to institute strengthened proof-of-citizenship requirements. That order has come under five lawsuits, and judges have halted portions of Trump's directive as the litigation proceeds. And in recent weeks, Trump has pushed Texas Republicans to commence a redistricting effort that would add several Republican-leaning seats. NFL will inch coach lawsuits closer to SCOTUS The NFL is inching two major lawsuits brought by coaches closer to the Supreme Court. Both involve whether the league can force the disputes into arbitration, which would keep the coaches' legal claims away from a jury and public view. Last week, the NFL's efforts fell flat in two separate courts, which ruled the coaches are entitled to pursue their claims before a jury. But the league isn't giving up. It plans to ask both courts to rehear the appeals, The Gavel has learned. And if that fails? The next step would be the Supreme Court. The NFL's first loss came when the Nevada Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the league's arbitration clause doesn't apply to former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden 's lawsuit. It reverses a panel decision that sided with the NFL. Gruden resigned in 2021 after The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal uncovered emails he wrote while working for ESPN that used racist, misogynistic and homophobic language. The NFL had found the emails during a sexual harassment investigation into the Washington Football Team (now the Commanders). Gruden's lawsuit claims the NFL engaged in a 'malicious and orchestrated campaign' to force his resignation, and he seeks the remainder of his 10-year, $100 million coaching contract. Nevada's high court ruled that Gruden is not bound by the NFL's forced arbitration provision since he is no longer an employee. Chief NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy told The Gavel, 'We will be appealing the decision.' The NFL was handed another loss Thursday, when a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Brian Flores and other Black coaches' discrimination claims against the NFL and three teams — the Denver Broncos, Houston Texans and New York Giants — can proceed before a jury. Th 2nd Circuit took issue with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell 's power under the league's rules to serve as arbitrator. The panel found the Federal Arbitration Act, a century-old law that enables parties to enforce arbitration agreements, doesn't apply because Goodell's role makes it 'arbitration in name only.' 'Accordingly, the agreement betrays the norm of bilateral dispute resolution,' the panel ruled. Though the disputes aren't heading to the Supreme Court quite yet, the NFL is already involved in one case pending before the justices. The NFL filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing the NBA in its bid to end a lawsuit filed by one of its online newsletter subscribers who claims the NBA violated federal law by disclosing his data. The justices will consider taking up the case at their first closed-door conference of the upcoming term, court records show. SIDEBAR 5 top docket updates Bondi walks back MPD memo: Bondi on Friday walked back her push to install an administration official as the emergency commissioner of the District of Columbia's police department under pressure from a federal judge. CFPB dismantling can resume: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday lifted an injunction that had long blocked the administration's efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The new ruling is on hold for one week. O'Rourke fundraising block expanded: A Texas state judge on Friday expanded his order limiting former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) and his political group from funding state Democratic lawmakers who fled the state to block a redistricting push. Alligator Alcatraz suit narrowed: A federal judge Monday partially dismissed Alligator Alcatraz detainees' lawsuit that raises concerns about attorney access. Some of the migrants' constitutional claims are proceeding, but the judge said they must be transferred to a different judicial district. Dem states sue over crime victim funds: Democratic attorneys general from D.C. and 20 states sued Monday over the administration's bid to condition federal funding for crime victims on cooperation with immigration enforcement. In other news Oops: A Fulton County, Ga., Superior Court judge accidentally relayed a 'not guilty' verdict as 'guilty.' He apologized for the 'mispronunciation.' Watch it here. Bye bye, Big Apple: Ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 's penthouse in the Upper East Side has sold for $4.95 million, a significantly discounted price. The property was nearly seized by two ex-Georgia election workers who won a $146 million defamation judgment against him, but he was allowed to keep it as part of a settlement reached earlier this year. ON THE DOCKET Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: Today: A federal judge in South Carolina is set to hold a motions hearing in a man's defamation lawsuit against Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) over a House floor speech in which she accused him of being a predator. The judge will hear arguments over whether to dismiss the case, allow discovery and other matters. A federal judge in Rhode Island is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit brought by Democratic states over the Trump administration's extension of a law's requirements for states to verify a person's legal status before allowing them to access certain federal programs, including Medicaid. Thursday: A federal judge in Georgia is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a campaign finance case involving gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov. Burt Jones and Chris Carr, the state's attorney general. A federal appeals court panel in San Francisco will hear arguments on the Trump administration's bid to overturn a judge's order requiring various agencies to turn over documents they used to plan mass layoffs. Friday: No notable hearings scheduled. Monday: A federal judge in Washington, D.C., will hold a hearing to assess the Trump administration's efforts to comply with his order to restore Voice of America 's operations. Tuesday: A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a hearing on new developments in a lawsuit challenging the Department of Government Efficiency's cost-cutting efforts at the Department of the Interior and environmental agencies. WHAT WE'RE READING Abigail Adcox, Amanda O'Brien and Christine Simmons: In Trump's Battle With Big Law, Has Leverage Shifted?
