Latest news with #Trump-appointed
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump just threw one of his most powerful allies under the bus
On Thursday evening, President Donald Trump publicly split with the Federalist Society, the powerful conservative lawyers' group that he relied on to select judges in his first term. Thanks in no small part to Trump, a majority of the Supreme Court justices are associated with the Federalist Society, as are dozens or even hundreds of other federal judges. But now, Trump apparently regrets his earlier partnership with the Society. 'I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations,' Trump posted on Truth Social. He blames his decision to ally with the Society on the fact that he was 'new to Washington' when he first became president, 'and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges.' He also names Leonard Leo, the co-chair of the Society's board, a 'sleazebag' who 'probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.' It's a bold move by Trump, because the Federalist Society derives much of its power from the fact that so many of its members have lifetime appointments to the federal bench. Promising conservative lawyers want to join — and pay dues — to the Society because it was seen as a pipeline to power. And the fact that its members have been able to shape policy on everything from abortion to race to student loans made it the premier right-wing legal group. That's not to say Trump will destroy the Society's grip on the judiciary. In fact, he may have inadvertently strengthened it. Older Federalist Society judges and justices may be less likely to retire under Trump now that they know that he's unlikely to rely on the Society to choose their replacement. And sitting Federalist Society judges and justices may view the Trump administration's legal arguments with greater skepticism. Trump's breakup with the Federalist Society isn't particularly surprising. At a recent Federalist Society conference on executive power, many of the speakers denounced Trump's incompetence and warned that it would prevent conservatives from achieving lasting policy victories during this administration. Some argued that Trump's signature economic policy, his tariffs, are illegal. And Trump is right that Leo, and by extension, the Federalist Society and its judges, have 'separate ambitions' that do not always align with Trump or the MAGA movement. While the Federalist Society certainly has plenty of members who are staunch MAGA loyalists, many of its judges still adhere to the more libertarian and less explicitly authoritarian approach that dominated the Republican Party before Trump took it over. Speakers at the recent Federalist Society conference spoke openly about plans to diminish Trump's power and shift authority toward the judiciary. Nor did the Federalist Society's judges rally behind Trump's failed attempt to overturn former President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Some of them even actively pushed back – Trump-appointed Judge Stephanos Bibas's opinion rejecting one of Trump's attempts to overturn that election begins with the line 'free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy,' and rejects Trump's claims due to a lack of 'specific allegations and then proof.' In his Thursday night post announcing that he and Leo are never getting back together, Trump pointed to a recent decision by the US Court of International Trade, which struck down an array of Trump's second-term tariffs, as a triggering event. Notably, one of these three judges, Timothy Rief, is a Trump appointee. So it appears that one of the most fruitful partnerships in the conservative legal movement's history is now over. This divorce is likely to diminish both Trump's power and that of the Society in the long run. The Federalist Society is America's most powerful legal organization in large part because it has such a comprehensive network of right-leaning and right-wing lawyers. Top law students often join the Federalist Society because the Society can help place them in clerkships with some of the most prestigious judges. The Society's events give young lawyers a chance to network with senior members of their profession who can connect them with other hard-to-obtain job opportunities. And, because senior lawyers often have a decades-long relationship with the Society, the Society can easily vet them for ideological loyalty if they seek a political appointment such as a federal judgeship. This network also means that the Federalist Society has historically provided a valuable service to Republican presidents. If a federal judicial vacancy arises in, say, Idaho, the president and his top advisers are unlikely to know which members of the Idaho bar are both highly skilled and ideologically committed to the GOP's goals. But the Federalist Society has both a student and a lawyers' chapter in Idaho. So it can identify highly qualified right-wing candidates for the bench and pass that information on to the White House. Without access to this network, Trump is likely to struggle to identify nominees as quickly as he did in his first term, and there are already signs that he's relying on alternative networks to find his second term judges — a shift that may diminish the Society's influence in the long run, because lawyers hoping for a political appointment will no longer gain an advantage by joining it. When Trump announced his first slate of second-term nominees in early May, for example, half of them were lawyers in GOP-controlled state attorney general's offices. These offices might provide Trump with a stream of loyal nominees in red states, but it is unclear how he will identify judicial candidates in blue states where elected officials are unlikely to fill their offices with lawyers sympathetic to the MAGA movement. Trump's split with the Federalist Society may prove to be one of the most consequential legal developments of his second term. The Federalist Society also provides right-of-center lawyers with a forum where they can debate their disagreements and often achieve consensus. Once such a consensus is reached, moreover, Federalist Society events help popularize that consensus among legal conservatives, while also communicating to ambitious young lawyers which policy positions they need to hold in order to secure the Society's aid when those lawyers seek political appointments. This means that judges chosen by the Society tend to have uniform views on a wide range of legal questions, even if those views are unusual within the legal profession as a whole. The Federalist Society, for example, has long popularized a theory known as the 'unitary executive,' which would give the president full control over all federal agencies, even if Congress tried to give those agencies' leaders a degree of independence. This theory played a central role in the Republican justices' shocking decision in Trump v. United States (2024), which established that the president has broad authority to use his official powers to commit crimes. If Trump stops drawing from the Federalist Society when he selects judges, in other words, his second-term nominees are likely to hold views that diverge from those of many sitting Republican judges, even if those nominees might broadly be described as 'conservative.' And that could set back the conservative cause. Before the Federalist Society's founding, for example, President Richard Nixon picked four justices that he believed to be conservative. But three of them joined the Court's abortion rights decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), and Nixon-appointed Justice Lewis Powell wrote a seminal opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which kept affirmative action alive for several decades. It's also possible that many sitting Federalist Society judges and justices will view Trump with greater skepticism now that he's no longer aligned with an organization that they closely identify with. Because the Federalist Society has been a central part of many lawyers' and judges' professional life for decades, these senior professionals often identify strongly with the Society and react negatively to perceived slights against it. In 2020, for example, the US Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct withdrew a proposal to discourage federal judges from belonging to ideological bar associations like the Federalist Society after that proposal triggered widespread backlash among judges aligned with the Society. When it comes to Trump, many of the lawsuits challenging his tariffs are backed by conservative legal organizations that historically have aligned with the Federalist Society; his attacks on the Federalist Society could make such organizations more likely to challenge him. Trump's split with the Federalist Society, in other words, may prove to be one of the most consequential legal developments of his second term. It is likely to make Republican judges less ideologically homogeneous, which increases the likelihood that any given panel of judges will vote against a conservative litigant. And it also means that many sitting judges will be less likely to retire under Trump, and more likely to view the Trump administration's legal arguments with skepticism.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Hundreds of ‘DEI' books are back at the Naval Academy. An alum and a bookshop fought their removal.
When the U.S. Naval Academy stripped 381 books tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) from its library, retired Commander William Marks saw more than censorship — he saw a threat to the Navy's future. But last week, after immense public outcry, most of those books returned to Nimitz Library shelves. 'Do you believe it?' asked Marks, a 1996 alum who spearheaded a campaign to maintain student access to the books. 'What great news. We're thrilled.' All the books the academy removed in early April had one thing in common: Officials flagged them for DEI themes. They include Maya Angelou's 'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,' Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and Elizabeth Reis' 'Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex.' The purge followed directives from Trump-appointed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has called DEI initiatives 'divisive.' Determined to ensure that students could still read the works, Marks began crowdfunding to replace them on April 5. 'The motto of the Naval Academy is 'from knowledge, seapower,'' said Marks, who served as a Navy commander for 22 years. 'What we mean is without knowledge, education and intellectual growth, we will never become a strong Navy. So this contradiction really struck me, that instead of encouraging knowledge and encouraging discussion, the Pentagon was actually suppressing knowledge and limiting discussion.' About 4,400 students, members of the Brigade of Midshipmen, attend the Naval Academy while on active duty in the U.S. Navy. After graduation, they are required to serve in the Navy or Marine Corps for at least five years. Women represent more than a quarter of the student body, while men make up over 70 percent of midshipmen. Initially, Marks hoped to fundraise $3,810, which he figured would be enough to cover the cost of the books pulled from Nimitz Library. Since Marks lives in Arlington, Texas, he tapped Old Fox Books & Coffeehouse in Annapolis, Maryland, home to the academy, to be his local partner. Donations have far exceeded his goal, topping $70,000. Jinny Amundson, an owner of Old Fox Books, said by the time she got the call from Marks, she had already heard about the books removed and had started compiling a list of them to purchase for the store's inventory. 'For a bookseller, the idea of censoring any kind of books just gives us heart palpitations,' Amundson said. 'And it's our community. The [midshipmen] think of our shop as a place that they love and one of their sort of unofficial bookstores. We have the mids, the faculty, the administration that come in and think of our space as their own.' Amundson said she understood that the removal of books was an order, which has to be followed within the military. But she found the loophole: Her bookshop could store the titles targeted. It is conveniently located about a block away from the Naval Academy gates. The day before the institution's May 23 graduation, Amundson learned that most of the pulled books were back on the library's shelves. She went to see for herself, took pictures of the books and sent them to many of the authors, who had personally contacted her when the restrictions on the works took effect. Now, just 20 books are being sequestered pending a formal compliance review, according to the Department of Defense. A Navy spokesperson did not provide details to The 19th about those titles. Ultimately, a narrowing of the search terms used to flag books for review resulted in the return of hundreds of books to the Nimitz Library, as the Department of Defense first issued broad guidance about book removals to the military services. 'What struck me was the very arbitrary and even cruel nature of the books that got removed,' Marks said. 'These books were a cross-section of American culture. They were important to the discussion of American history.' In an updated May 9 memo, the Pentagon instructed the military services to use 20 search terms to pinpoint books in their academic libraries that might need to be set aside because of how they engage race or gender. Among those terms were affirmative action; critical race theory; gender-affirming care; transgender people; and diversity, equity and inclusion. People across the political spectrum expressed alarm about the book restrictions, which have been widely opposed, according to Marks. 'We really shouldn't be banning any books,' he said. That includes those with unpopular, or even offensive, ideas like Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf,' which managed to evade the Naval Academy's book purge, he noted. He calls his effort to maintain the midshipmen's access to all books in the Nimitz Library Operation Caged Bird, after the 1969 Angelou memoir that was likely targeted because it describes racial segregation and child abuse. The name Operation Caged Bird also alludes to the feeling of being restrained by censorship. 'I almost felt like I could feel the bars closing in on me in terms of what I can read and can't read,' Marks said. 'That didn't sit right.' Marks' GoFundMe campaign has raised enough money to supply 1,000 books in 2025 and fund a three-year initiative at Old Fox, ensuring midshipmen can access any contested title for free. 'If you're a midshipman and you're writing an essay paper and there's a book you can't find, maybe it's been removed or banned, you can call them, and they'll order it for you, and then you just pick it up free of charge,' Marks said. He's also coordinating with other service academies, anticipating similar battles. At the Navy's three other educational institutions, fewer than 20 books have been flagged as potentially incompatible with the military's mission, as have a few dozen at the Air Force Academy and other Air Force academic institutions. The Army has also been ordered to assess library books at its educational institutions, but a spokesperson from West Point told The 19th that no books have been pulled at this time, as its compliance review is still underway. The return of nearly 400 books to the Naval Academy library coincides with a pending lawsuit accusing Department of Defense-run schools of violating K-12 students' constitutional rights for limiting books and subject matter related to gender, race and sexuality. The American Civil Liberties Union filed E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of 12 students. A hearing will take place June 3. The ACLU seeks a preliminary injunction to give the youth access to materials it argues have been restricted to align with President Donald Trump's executive orders and political agenda. Amundson said she was pleasantly surprised that it took just weeks for the books to be returned to the Naval Academy. 'I believe that what happened and the response that was given in Annapolis — I think that made the administration be much more careful this time around as they're going for these other libraries, the other Department of Defense libraries around the world,' she said. Amundson said using the funds raised from the GoFundMe campaign, the bookstore was able to give away nearly 500 books in the days leading up to the Naval Academy graduation. For weeks, letters of support piled up and people stopped by the bookstore with gratitude, some even driving from hours away to show their support in person. In addition to Operation Caged Bird, Amundson said there were 'powerful arms at work.' There was pushback on the book removals from members of Congress, the Naval Academy's Board of Visitors and the superintendent — who wrote an open letter signed by hundreds of alumni. 'For right now, this was a huge win for us,' Amundson said. The post Hundreds of 'DEI' books are back at the Naval Academy. An alum and a bookshop fought their removal. appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Trump's attack on the conservative legal movement is a big deal
With Donald Trump's rhetoric, it's often difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, the statements-of-intent from the just-venting, and the 'literal' from the merely 'serious.' His social media missive Thursday night suddenly attacking the conservative legal movement should probably be put in the former categories. It could be one of the most significant moments in Trump's long-running attempt to consolidate power – and sideline both Congress and the courts – in his second term. Republican- and even Trump-appointed judges have increasingly formed something of a bulwark against Trump's power grabs. And the president has (at least for now) declared war on them, too. In sum: Trump could be trying to bulldoze one of the biggest remaining impediments to his quest for unchecked power. His Truth Social post ran more than 500 words. And it was a lot. But the crux of it was his decision to attack former Federalist Society head Leonard Leo. Leo is an architect of not just the conservative legal movement but also many of Trump's judicial picks in his first term. One study found 80% of Trump's appeals-court judges were tied to the Federalist Society, as were all three of his Supreme Court picks. Trump called Leo a 'sleazebag' – in quotation marks – and 'a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America.' He said Leo and the Federalist Society gave him bad advice on the judges he picked. And perhaps most notably, he posited that maybe Leo was part of some kind of conspiracy. It's all very suggestive. 'He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court,' Trump said, before adding: 'I hope that is not so, and don't believe it is!' Trump isn't saying this, but he's saying it. This, of course, doesn't come out of nowhere. While the White House has frequently attacked judges who rule against Trump's actions as 'radical' leftists, an increasing number of the rulings against Trump have come from judges appointed by Republicans and in, in some cases, judges appointed by Trump The ruling the president was responding to in his Thursday night post came from a three-judge federal trade panel, which includes a Trump-appointed judge, that struck down many of his most significant tariffs (an appeals court later stayed that decision). Earlier this week, another Trump-appointed judge temporarily halted the administration's efforts to block congestion pricing in New York City. And there's plenty more where that came from, from both Republican-appointed judges and Trump-appointed ones. Many of the adverse rulings pertain to Trump's rapid and legally dubious deportation efforts. A study earlier in Trump's second term from CNN Supreme Court analyst and Georgetown University Law Center professor Stephen Vladeck made clear it wasn't just 'leftist' judges who were standing up to Trump and issuing injunctions the White House has frequently derided; when Trump's actions came before Republican-appointed judges, they too were issuing injunctions at a remarkable 45% clip. All of which undermines the White House's oft-invoked claims that this is something of a 'judicial coup' engineered by a bunch of liberal judges. If Republican- and even Trump-appointed judges are doing it, too, that suggests this is really about Trump overstepping, not the judges. So perhaps recognizing the growing problems with that talking point, Trump has decided to include Republican appointees and even judges he himself picked in the grand conspiracy of usurpers. To be clear, there is no real evidence of any such conspiracy. Leo and the Federalist Society are surely formidable figures in American politics – ones whose goals have often overlapped with Trump and created a symbiosis. Trump and other top Republicans have hailed their successful effort to steer the American judiciary to the right during his first term, most notably in the now-6-3-majority Supreme Court. Some of that was happenstance – getting vacancies at the right time – but some of it was the result of a rather bare-knuckle and very political approach to recasting the judiciary. (See: Then-Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell not even giving Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016). But a more logical explanation for the current clash between Trump and these GOP- and Trump-appointed judges is a lot simpler than these judges being under Leo's thumb. These are judges, after all, who built their careers in a different era and corner of the conservative movement. They're generally more traditional establishment conservatives – the kind that used to have more of a foothold in federal politics but have steadily headed for the exits or changed their ways – rather than the brand of Trump loyalists who have increasingly taken over the party. They also have lifetime appointments, which insulates them from the political winds of the day. So where does this leave us? White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told CNN's Pamela Brown on Friday that the White House will not use the Federalist Society to make judicial picks moving forward. Still, it remains to be seen how much Trump truly presses forward with attacking Leo, the Federalist Society and Republican-appointed judges. Sometimes these moments pass, and Trump makes amends with people he said such awful things about. His attacks here are also a fraught effort, given how much overlap there is between even the Trump-era Republican Party and the Federalist Society. Perhaps Trump views this as a momentary warning flare to Republican-appointed judges, in hopes that they at least feel the pressure. But criticizing them is one thing; suggesting they are beholden to a secret puppet-master who hates America is quite another. And Trump appears motivated to keep it up. Given the makeup of our courts, many of these judges represent pivotal votes for or against Trump's agenda, most notably in the Supreme Court. If these judges keep standing in his way – which wouldn't be surprising, given how brazen many of Trump's moves are – he needs to somehow explain why even seeming ideological allies would do that. And to the extent Trump does marshal his base against even these conservative judges, it's not difficult to see that inching us closer to a truly ugly constitutional clash between the administration and the courts. The administration has already flirted with outright ignoring court orders, which would open up a Pandora's box for our democracy. It might be an unavoidable conflict at this point, and Trump on Thursday sent his first major signal that he's leaning into it.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
What to know about Trump's pardon of ex-Cincinnati City Councilman PG Sittenfeld
Former Cincinnati City Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who was convicted of federal bribery and attempted extortion charges, was pardoned May 28 by President Donald Trump. Sittenfeld's convictions derailed a promising political career, in which he had once been the frontrunner for mayor. He was arrested months after announcing his campaign for Cincinnati mayor in 2020. The president's decision to grant clemency to Sittenfeld came as an unexpected move, considering the ex-councilman had voiced disapproval of Trump. Here's what we know and don't know about Sittenfeld's pardon. Trump signed an "executive grant of clemency" directing the U.S. Attorney General to sign and grant a "full and unconditional pardon" to Sittenfeld. "The Attorney General shall declare that her action is the act of the President, being performed at my direction," it reads. However, the document does not list any specific reasons why Trump would grant such a pardon. The case against Sittenfeld centered on donations to his political action committee, which prosecutors said he solicited from an informant for the FBI and FBI agents posing as developers of a downtown Cincinnati project. Prosecutors said Sittenfeld's actions went beyond campaign fundraising and crossed the line into bribery. A jury found him guilty in 2022. After a lengthy post-conviction legal battle, Sittenfeld was sentenced to 16 months in prison, although he only served about four and a half months at a facility in Ashland, Kentucky. In May 2024, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals released him while his appeal was pending. Earlier this year, the 6th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the convictions. At that time, all three Trump-appointed judges appeared to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Sittenfeld has taken his case to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his convictions. It's not clear if Sittenfeld will continue to challenge his convictions. It remains unclear how Sittenfeld, a Democrat who once called Trump a 'buffoonish carnival barker," was able to garner favor with the Republicn president's administration. More: Trump's pardon of Sittenfeld stunned many in Cincinnati, but the move fits a pattern Trump has complained repeatedly about what he describes as the 'weaponization' of the legal system against him and others. He's also granted clemency to other public officials convicted of corruption charges, although most of those pardons have gone to Republicans or to people who've publicly praised Trump. Ultimately, the president doesn't have to explain his reasons for pardoning anyone, including Sittenfeld. The pardon power requires no Congressional oversight and no judicial review. Sittenfeld wasn't the only person Trump deemed fit to grant clemency for federal convictions. The moves were part of a fresh wave of pardons by Trump on May 28, according to USA TODAY. Other prominent people who received a pardon from Trump include: Former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, who pleaded guilty in late 2004 to one count of conspiring to commit tax fraud and depriving the public of honest service. Louisiana-born rapper NBA YoungBoy, whose real name is Kentrell Gaulden, who pleaded guilty to a federal gun charge in 2024. Larry Hoover, a Chicago gang leader who co-founded the Gangster Disciples and was convicted of murder in 1973. Hoover is still serving state sentences. Former New York Rep. Michael Grimm, a Republican who resigned after being convicted of tax fraud. Former 1st Lt. Mark Bashaw, who was discharged from the U.S. Army after his 2022 conviction at a special court martial for refusing to follow COVID-19 safety measures. Reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley of "Chrisley Knows Best" fame, who were found guilty in 2022 of conspiring to commit tax evasion and defraud Atlanta banks, as well as the IRS. Enquirer staff writers Kevin Grasha, Dan Horn and Scott Wartman contributed to this report. USA TODAY also contributed. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: PG Sittenfeld pardon: What to know about Trump's order to grant clemency
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Dr. Oz pushes back on criticism that GOP is cutting Medicaid
President Donald Trump's favorite celebrity doctor is standing behind his new boss on an issue that has sparked opposition even among some Republicans. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Trump-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, wouldn't concede in an interview with POLITICO'S newest podcast that the budget megabill passed by the House will cut Medicaid. Oz arguedin an interview on The Conversation with Dasha Burns that the Medicaid work requirements in the sprawling legislation will 'future proof' the program — in line with administration goals to protect social services. 'Every great people takes care of their most vulnerable, and we're a great nation,' Oz said in the interview scheduled to run Sunday. 'We're gonna do that. So there's a lot of sensitivity about being accused, accused of not taking care of people who have disabilities or seniors without money or children.' Trump's mission, Oz said, is to ensure the program remains solvent. 'I'm trying to save Medicaid,' he said. 'That's the president's goal as well. He said over and over again, he wants to love and cherish these programs and we need to keep them viable.' When Oz was sworn into his post in April,Trump insisted there would be no cuts to Medicaid. But aCongressional Budget Office report from May estimated that 7.6 million people would become uninsured if the Medicaid portions of the GOP megabill go into effect. Even some top Republicans, including Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, worry the cuts will hurt the party. A wing of "corporatist Republicans,'Hawley claimed in a May New York Times op-ed, 'wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.' GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine are also expressing reservations with the House bill's Medicaid cuts. Democrats, meanwhile, are capitalizing on the issue — withads hammering House Republicans for voting to cut spending set to begin running next week. Oz pushed back, telling Burns the vast majority of Americans agree with the White House push to enact work requirements in exchange for healthcare. 'We're not cutting Medicaid,' he told Burns. 'I've seen the proposals. There is no proposal I've seen, in fact, in fairness, that doesn't increase spending on Medicaid.'
