
‘Stop violating the law!': Exasperated judge blasts Trump for blackout over public money
In a ruling on Monday, District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, D.C. found that the White House Office of Management and Budget illegally took down a public website showing how federal agencies spend taxpayer money.
'There is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public's money,' Sullivan wrote in a 60-page opinion.
'Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!' added Sullivan — emphasis his.
The administration removed the website in March. OMB director Russell Vought told members of Congress that the office intentionally flouted the law by scraping the database due to the 'sensitive' and 'deliberative' nature of the information on it.
A lawsuit from nonprofit watchdog groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy accused the administration of removing data to which they are statutorily entitled as part of their efforts to monitor government funding.
According to Sullivan, Trump and Vought relied on 'an extravagant and unsupported theory of presidential power' to argue that the government's appropriation of public funds does not need to be publicly disclosed.
Instead, they complained about the 'extra work' required of them under law passed by Congress in 2022 and 2023, Sullivan wrote.
'This is a management issue; not a constitutional one,' he said.
The judge ordered OMB to restore the database and publicly disclose the information on it, including any apportionment information from the time the database was taken offline.
'The law is clear that the federal government must make its appropriations decisions public,' according to Adina Rosenbaum, Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney and counsel on the case. 'So this case turned on a straightforward point: The administration must follow the law.'
Nikhel Sus, deputy chief counsel at CREW, said the decision 'reaffirms Congress's constitutional authority to require public disclosure of how taxpayer dollars are spent.'
'Americans have a right to know how taxpayer money is being spent,' he added. 'Ensuring public access to this information serves as a critical check on the executive branch's abuse and misuse of federal funds.'
The Trump administration has repeatedly taken a beating in federal court, with dozens of court orders across the country striking down key elements of his agenda as unconstitutional, or, in one case, confounding a judge who compared his sweeping executive actions to a 'gumbo' giving him 'heartburn.'
The president, whose critics have accused him of mounting a constitutional crisis in his defiance of the courts, has resisted court orders nearly one-third of the time.
In an analysis of 165 court orders filed against the Trump administration, The Washington Post found the president has been accused of defying decisions in at least 57 cases.
The Supreme Court's recent decision stemming from legal challenges striking down his executive order that seeks to redefine birthright citizenship could significantly diminish judicial authority.
The high court's decision could effectively prevent judges — who are facing an avalanche of legal questions challenging the constitutionality of the president's agenda — from issuing nationwide injunctions, making it extraordinarily difficult to unwind the president's actions if they are later found to be illegal.
Vought, meanwhile, argues that the appropriations process should be 'less bipartisan.'
'There is no voter in the country that went to the polls and said, 'I'm voting for a bipartisan appropriations process,'' he told a Christian Science Monitor event last week. 'That may be the view of something that appropriators want to maintain.'
Vought, a former Heritage Foundation policy director and co-author of Project 2025, had recently ushered through legislation to revoke $9 billion in previously approved federal funding to gut global aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds National Public Radio and PBS.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Jim Acosta interviews ‘made-up' AI avatar of Parkland victim Joaquin Oliver
Jim Acosta, former chief White House correspondent for CNN, stirred controversy on Monday when he sat for a conversation with a reanimated version of a person who died more than seven years ago. His guest was an avatar of Joaquin Oliver, one of the 17 people killed in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, in 2018. The video shows Oliver, captured via a real photograph and animated with generative artificial intelligence, wearing a beanie with a solemn expression. Acosta asks the avatar: 'What happened to you?' 'I appreciate your curiosity,' Oliver answers in hurried monotone without inflection or pauses for punctuation. 'I was taken from this world too soon due to gun violence while at school. It's important to talk about these issues so we can create a safer future for everyone.' The avatar's narration is stilted and computerized. The movements of its face and mouth are jerky and unnatural, looking more like a dub-over than an actual person talking. Oliver was 17 years old when he was shot and killed in the hallway of Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school. According to Since Parkland, a reporting project about the victims of the shooting, the teenager loved writing and came to school that day, Valentine's Day, with flowers for his girlfriend. He would have been 25 on Monday. Acosta had teased the interview on social media saying it would be a 'show you don't want to miss' and a 'one of a kind interview'. The former correspondent now describes himself as an independent journalist and posts content on a Substack blog after parting ways with CNN in January. The former CNN anchor quickly faced criticism online in response to the stunt. One of the many angry users on the social media platform Bluesky posted: 'There are living survivors of school shootings you could interview, and it would really be their words and thoughts instead of completely made-up.' Acosta said in the video segment that Oliver's parents created the AI version of their son and his father, Manuel Oliver, invited him to be the first reporter to interview the avatar. Acosta also spoke to Manuel Oliver in the video, telling him: 'I really felt like I was speaking with Joaquin. It's just a beautiful thing.' The victim's father said he understood this was an AI version of his son and that he can't bring him back, but it was a blessing to hear his voice again. He said he's looking forward to seeing what more AI can do. Acosta's conversation is not the first time AI has been used to bring back the victims of Parkland. Last year, parents of several victims launched a robocalling campaign called The Shotline with the voices of six students and staff who were killed in the mass shooting. The idea was to use the AI voices to call members of Congress and demand action on gun reform. Oliver was one of the victims in that project too. 'I'm back today because my parents used AI to recreate my voice to call you,' Oliver's message said. 'How many calls will it take for you to care? How many dead voices will you hear before you finally listen?' Sign up to TechScape A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives after newsletter promotion The use of AI to speak with recreations of the dead is still a work in progress with imperfect movements and voices, one that comes steeped in ethical controversy. Critics say creating digitized computer avatars of real people and allowing them to stand in for the deceased opens the door for misinformation, deepfakes, fraud and scams, making it hard for people to distinguish between what is real or not. Others have likewise used AI avatars to simulate the speech of victims of crimes. In May, an AI version of a man who was killed in a road rage incident in Arizona appeared in a court hearing. Lawyers played an AI video of the victim addressing his alleged killer in an impact statement. 'I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives. I always have and I still do,' the victim's avatar said. The presiding judge responded favorably. 'I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness,' he said. 'I feel that that was genuine.'


BBC News
19 minutes ago
- BBC News
Why is Donald Trump discussing Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle
President Donald Trump is praising Sydney Sweeney in the wake of backlash against the American actress for her controversial American Eagle advertisement. "Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the HOTTEST ad out there," he wrote in a Truth Social post. "Go get 'em Sydney!"The Emmy-nominated actress for roles in Euphoria and The White Lotus stars in a denim jeans advertisement, where she states: "Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality and even eye colour. My jeans are blue." Critics have called out the blonde, blue-haired actress's wordplay in the commercial, using "genes" instead of "jeans" - sparking debate over race and western beauty Eagle has defended the advert and stated it was - and still is - only about the company's jeans. What is the controversy? The clothing store American Eagle released a jeans advertisement featuring Sweeney on 23 July. The slogan "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans" appeared on television, social media and on the outside of storefronts. Almost instantly, it received pushback from people on social criticised the "genes" pun coming from a blonde-haired, blue-eyed actress as echoing rhetoric associated with eugenics - the controlled selective reproduction of humans to improve future generations. Conservatives backed Sweeney and labelled the outrage as overblown and "woke". Reports then surfaced that Sweeney is a registered Republican. Shortly after, Trump made comments about the saga and expressed his support for her. Sweeney, herself, has not commented on the matter. What has American Eagle said? American Eagle has responded to the controversy and said the ad campaign "is and always was about the jeans". "Her jeans. Her story," American Eagle said. "We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone."Since Trump began speaking about the advertisement on Monday, the company's stock has skyrocketed, and was up as much as 20%. That did not surprise, Allen Adamson, co-founder of marketing consultancy Metaforce, who said American Eagle "nailed" the advertisement."It is exponentially harder than it was years ago," he told the BBC. "Success in marketing today is to get consumers sharing [advertisements] on social."But advertisements have to be "extraordinary" for people to share them, "whether that's extraordinary good or extraordinarily bad," he Adamson said the social media buzz American Eagle is getting from the advertisement is worth ten or 20 times what the store spent on creating it. Is Sweeney a Republican? Sweeney has been registered as a Republican in the state of Florida since 2024, records show. But she has not spoken out about politics. She made headlines in 2023 when videos and images from her mother's birthday party were shared online and showed some attendees in Make America Great Again hats. Sweeney responded and said people should "stop making assumptions" and turning the "innocent celebration" into an "absurd political statement."Months later, she was asked about it in an interview: "Honestly, I feel like nothing I say can help the conversation," she told GQ. "It's been turning into a wildfire, and nothing I can say will take it back to the correct track," she added. What has Trump said about it? On Sunday, reporters travelling with the US president asked him about Sweeney. "You'd be surprised at how many people are Republicans," Trump said after a reporter stated that the White Lotus star is a registered Republican."That's what I wouldn't have known, but I'm glad you told me that. If Sydney Sweeney is a registered Republican, I think her ad is fantastic," Trump said on before Trump weighed in, the saga had been the focus of conservative media with some suggesting the advert had been not only a great promotion for American Eagle - but also for the political party.


The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump contorting justice department into his ‘personal weapon', experts warn
As Donald Trump's Department of Justice expands investigations of his foes and ousts dozens of lawyers and staff who worked on cases targeting himself and his allies, scholars and ex-prosecutors say the rule of law is under siege in the US as the department morphs into Trump's 'personal weapon'. The justice department's politicization to please Trump was underscored by an announcement on 23 July of a new ' strike force' to investigate unsubstantiated charges that ex-president Barack Obama and top officials conspired to hurt Trump's 2016 campaign and his presidency with inquiries into Russian influence operations to help Trump win, say critics. The announcement came the day after Trump dodged queries from reporters about the justice department's failure to produce long-promised files about the notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, and pivoted to blast Obama without evidence for 'treason'. Trump's conspiratorial charge echoed dubious claims by his national intelligence director, Tulsi Gabbard, who days before called for a justice department inquiry into a purported 'treasonous conspiracy'. Likewise, the FBI earlier in July announced investigations into the ex-FBI director James Comey and ex-CIA director John Brennan, which critics see as political efforts to placate Trump who has often voiced anger at them for their roles in the Russia investigations before and during his first term. Legal scholars and ex-prosecutors say Trump and his loyal attorney general, Pam Bondi, have turned the justice department into his personal law firm to pursue his political and legal agendas. 'It's not unprecedented for presidents to deploy their powers for personal ends, but no one including Nixon has done this with the intensity of Trump,' Peter Shane, who teaches constitutional law at New York University, told the Guardian. Shane added: 'DoJ is now being used as a personal weapon on behalf of Trump to a degree that is without precedent. Trump has a team of sycophants and enablers at DoJ. They're not behaving the way office holders sworn to uphold the constitution are expected to behave. 'The idea that the Obama administration fabricated the story of Russian interference has been refuted multiple times, including by the Senate intelligence committee when, under the chairmanship of then senator Marco Rubio, the committee determined that Russia had indeed launched an aggressive covert effort to interfere in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf.' Other scholars raise similar alarms. 'Trump is using the justice department to target his perceived enemies and pursue his political goals,' said Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor who now lectures on law at George Washington University. 'The guiding principle for any DoJ prosecutor has always been loyalty to the constitution and the rule of law. Under this administration, it appears that the primary job requirement for any DoJ prosecutor, up to and including the attorney general, is loyalty to Donald Trump.' The premium that Trump has placed on loyalty at the justice department was revealed early by his choices of Bondi as attorney general, Todd Blanche as deputy attorney general and other senior officials. Bondi, an ex-Florida attorney general, helped defend Trump in the Senate during his first impeachment, and Blanche was his lead counsel in New York where Trump was convicted in 2024 of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to hide payments during his 2016 campaign to a porn star who alleged an affair with him. The justice department's drive to please Trump was evident in July when Bondi fired about 20 departmental employees. They included support staff and several prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases for special counsel Jack Smith, who charged Trump with improperly retaining hundreds of classified documents after he left office in early 2021, and for engaging in an 'unprecedented criminal effort' to stay in power after his 2020 election loss. Notably, Bondi this month abruptly fired without explanation the department's top ethics official, Joseph Tirrell, and Maureen Comey, a key prosecutor in New York who had worked on charges against Epstein and is James Comey's daughter. Several senior justice department and FBI officials were ousted in the first months of Trump's second presidency. For their part, Trump and Bondi have been blunt about axing lawyers and staff they deem political foes for allegedly politicizing the justice department against Trump. In February, for instance, Trump ordered the department to oust all remaining 'Biden-era' US attorneys, claiming the department 'has been politicized like never before' under Biden. In a similar vein, before taking office Bondi pledged during a confirmation hearing to eliminate what she blasted as 'the partisanship, the weaponization' of the Department of Justice under Biden. Some ex-prosecutors say Trump's charges that he was the victim of justice department weaponization stem from his penchant for conspiratorial thinking. 'The inane claims of weaponization we hear from Trump and his associates are particularly extraordinary because Trump regularly calls for the criminal investigation and prosecution of his political enemies,' said Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is now a law professor at Columbia University. 'Baseless claims of crimes by his political opponents have always been a staple of Trump's rants. But now that he is president and has picked justice department leaders for their loyalty and not their competence or integrity, the risk of abusive investigations grows.' The justice department's intense focus on targeting Trump critics was evident after Bondi became attorney general when she quickly issued a memo establishing a 'weaponization' working group, say critics. Barbara McQuade, who teaches law at the University of Michigan and used to be a federal prosecutor, said Bondi's memo actually 'weaponizes law enforcement and undermines public confidence in government' because it pushes a 'false narrative' about the two special counsel investigations of Trump. McQuade stressed that 'federal grand juries returned indictments in both cases, meaning that they found probable cause that the crimes were committed.' Other justice department veterans have been appalled at its transformation including the wave of firings. Stacey Young, who spent 18 years as a federal litigator at the Department of Justice before leaving voluntarily in January, launched the group Justice Connection to help remaining justice department employees deal with ethical and legal headaches and find jobs for those who want to leave. 'These unprecedented firings at the justice department are growing exponentially,' Young told the Guardian. ' They happen with no notice and no opportunity to be heard, in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act and due process. Many people, and even their supervisors, have no idea why the firings targeted them or why now. Employees now wake up each day wondering if they're going to be next. 'It's screwing with people's lives, and it's also creating a culture of fear among the entire workforce. DoJ leadership is making clear the ability to keep your job is not tied to your performance, your expertise, or your commitment to uphold and defend the constitution.' On 24 July, three justice department officials including Tirrell who were abruptly fired this summer, filed a lawsuit against Bondi seeking reinstatement and back pay arguing that they were axed improperly and without cause. Other ex-federal prosecutors say the department is now being weaponized to please Trump. 'There is literally no reason to fire these people, other than to continue molding the department into Trump's personal law firm,' Mike Romano, an ex-justice department prosecutor who left voluntarily in March after almost four years working on prosecutions of Trump allies who stormed the Capitol on 6 January 2021. 'Trump and Bondi are bringing us back to the spoils system, where the government is not staffed by merit but based on favors, and is not staffed with experts, but with hacks and cronies. As a country, we decided almost 150 years ago that the spoils system is terrible and corrupt.' Further, Bondi and Trump have stepped up attacks on judges who have rebuked justice department lawyers for presenting arguments in court that were specious or failed to respond to judges' queries, several of which have involved the administration's hardline anti-immigrant actions, say critics. 'There are certain things lawyers should avoid doing because they are sure to pique the ire of federal judges,' said ex-federal judge John Jones, who is president of Dickinson College. 'These include patronizing, temporizing, lying and making baseless arguments. The Trump DoJ lawyers have hit them all before multiple judges.' Likewise, Emil Bove III, a key Trump defense lawyer in 2024 who was the justice department's number three for several months before Trump nominated him as a federal appeals court judge that the Senate recently approved, was cited in one whistleblower complaint for telling department lawyers they could flout court orders to further Trump's immigration agenda. More broadly, scholars and justice department veterans see the Trump administration breaking sharply with historical norms and rewriting history to burnish Trump's image. 'The firing of the January 6 prosecutors and the pardons of the Capitol rioters are all part of an effort to whitewash what happened on January 6,' said Eliason. 'The goal is to portray the rioters as the true victims and falsely suggest that the law enforcement professionals who pursued these cases did something wrong. 'A key foundation of our constitutional system is adherence to the rule of law and the independence of the justice system from politics. That's all being discarded by the Trump administration.' Shane likewise stressed: 'Trump has placed his own lawyers in key justice department positions, expecting them to continue thinking of themselves as personal lawyers for Donald Trump, not government lawyers for the president as an office-holder bound by law.'