FBI Director "Crazy-Eyes Kash" Patel files a $250-million lawsuit against The Atlantic for its story about heavy drinking that caused him to go AWOL on the job

FBI Director Kash Patel sues The Atlantic (TMZ)

Of all the pain Donald Trump has inflicted on our government, what have been the two most damaging assaults? My vote goes to the following:

(1) Trump's utter disregard for the U.S. Constitution, which he swore to protect and uphold. This perhaps has been most brazenly reflected in his determination to seek investigations and prosecutions of his perceived political enemies. The Fourth Amendment holds that criminal charges be based on probable cause. But Trump has ignored that constitutional requirement and replaced it with prosecutions based on presidential whims. Public reports show that Trump has targeted roughly 470 individuals, organizations, and institutions for retribution, including numerous investigations and prosecutions aimed at political opponents, former officials, and critics.  

(2) Instead of filling his cabinet and other high-level positions with experts and distinctly qualified individuals who have demonstrated strong ethics and judgment, Trump has gone a different route. He has filled critical roles with sycophants and loyalists, many of whom tend to be corrupt and almost laughably incompetent. 

What Trump appointee best personifies the president's worst instincts? There is a lot of competition for that "honor," even though "strong candidates," such as former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and former Attorney General Pam Bondi, recently have been forced out of their jobs. But we are reserving this honor to those still serving in the administration -- and with apologies to Pete Hegseth, RFK Jr., J.D. Vance and a seemingly endless list of candidates -- we must give the nod to FBI Director Kash Patel. The man with the perpetually bugged eyes (known by some as "Crazy-Eyes Kash") has been a contender all along, but recent events helped him nail down the honor.

A report in The Atlantic magazine revealed that Patel has alarmed colleagues with excessive drinking that caused him to miss meetings and go AWOL on the job. Sources said Patel drinks to the point of intoxication, requiring his security detail to wake him.

Patel denies the allegations and claims in a lawsuit the story is false and defamatory. The Atlantic story and other recent revelations, raise questions about Patel's judgment and fitness to serve as head of the FBI. We will examine those questions in upcoming posts. But first, let's look at issues that are central to the lawsuit, which was filed on Monday (April 20), indicating Patel was determined not to waste any time. In a jointly published article at CBS News and Yahoo! News, under the headline "Kash Patel sues The Atlantic for $250 million over story on alleged drinking." Jacob Rosen writes:

FBI Director Kash Patel filed a defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic magazine on Monday, saying a recent story about his alleged frequent drinking and absences included "false and obviously fabricated" claims.

The 19-page lawsuit, filed in the District of Columbia, is seeking $250 million in damages. Sarah Fitzpatrick, the reporter who wrote the story, is also named as a defendant.

Patel and the FBI have repeatedly denied allegations in the story, which included allegations that Patel often drinks to excess. The piece, which cited multiple unnamed current and former officials, also said that Patel's "irregular presence at FBI headquarters and in field offices" has delayed "time-sensitive decisions" that require the FBI director's input.

The lawsuit listed 17 allegations in the article that Patel's legal team alleges were "false and defamatory statements of fact," including that he "is known to drink to the point of obvious intoxication."

"Each of the foregoing statements and implications is false. They are so demonstrably and obviously false, or easily refuted, that it was at best reckless to publish them," the suit said.

In a statement posted on X, The Atlantic said, "We stand by our reporting on Kash Patel, and we will vigorously defend The Atlantic and our journalists from this meritless lawsuit."

Patel never has been one to cozy up to the press. In fact, he has threatened to go after journalists both criminally and civilly -- the First Amendment be damned. Not surprisingly, The Atlantic lawsuit is not Patel's first go-around with a media organization in court. CBS' Rosen writes:

CBS News has reached out to Patel's lawyer, Jesse Binnall, for additional comment.

This is the second lawsuit that Patel has filed in connection with media reports about allegations of his drinking and partying.

Last year, he sued Frank Figliuzzi, an MSNBC analyst and former FBI agent, over a claim suggesting Patel was spending more time in nightclubs than the FBI's headquarters. That case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, is still pending.

Patel has faced plenty of criticism in the press, as we noted in a May 2025 post. From that report:

FBI Director Kash Patel has come under fire on several fronts recently. Perhaps the most searing accusation against Patel is that he isn't serious about his job. In fact, a former FBI official said Patel has been seen more at nightclubs than at work. Is it a problem if Patel would rather boogie at clubs than show up on the job? One of my journalism brethren has concluded it might be a good thing.

Matt Ford, of The New Republic (TNR), explains, under the headline "Please Stop Trying to Get Kash Patel Fired; The last thing this country needs is an FBI director who wants to show up for work and zealously enact Trump’s agenda." The headline, on its own, is a hoot, and Ford proceeds to make a well-reasoned argument. He also points out that Patel is not just a nightclub hound; he also shows up regularly at sports events, sometimes with famous guests. Ford writes:

Last month, Washington Capitals captain Alex Ovechkin scored his 875th goal in the National Hockey League, surpassing Wayne Gretzky’s long-standing record. Gretzky himself was present for the away game against the New York Islanders. When the cameras cut to Gretzky in the stands, a slightly less familiar face was seated with him: FBI Director Kash Patel.

As the recipient of such coverage, Patel should be used to feeling heat from the press. So what was it about The Atlantic story that got him so riled up? And was Patel wise to file a defamation lawsuit against the magazine? 

We will examine those and other questions in upcoming posts. We invite you to stay tuned.

Mary Trump: Her uncle Donald misfires, turning Iran from a non-factor to a menace in the Middle East, while he seeks an easy exit that is a mess in the making

Mary Trump and her best-selling family memoir (Politico)

How many ways has the war in Iran been a disaster for Donald Trump? One, he has been reduced to using his failing social-media site to sell weight-loss drugs. Two, after poking Iran hard enough and long enough to turn it from an afterthought into a genuine menace in the Middle East, Trump now is trying desperately to wriggle out of a war he started. He is so desperate, in fact, that he is threatening to commit war crimes against Iran if it does not reach a deal to end the war on U.S. terms. That is the assessment of Mary L. Trump, Donald's niece. As a licensed psychologist and best-selling author, Mary probably knows how Donald's brain works better than anyone on the planet.

Trying to think along with Donald Trump cannot be a pleasant task. But Mary, in an effort to warn the public about a clear and present danger, has been willing to take it on -- and a review of "Too Much and Never Enough," her best-selling family memoir, can be read at this link. Lord knows, Mary probably could write a new book just on the cow pies Donald has stepped in over the past 8-10 days while trying to extricate himself from a war that never should have started -- and likely wouldn't have if he had even two or three competent people on his staff. Alas, Donald thought he needed loyalists instead of qualified people around him, so now he is left to flail about, trying not to drown in the kind of political doo-doo created by cratering approval ratings.

At this point, Donald Trump might not care what happens to the United States, as long as he doesn't wind up wearing an orange jumpsuit in the post-Republican era that hopefully awaits us. It's hardly a comforting thought that an American president might not care if the U.S. sinks or swims. But to borrow a metaphor from his beloved world of golf, that is par for the course for Donald J. Trump; he's a malignant narcissist, and that's how such a personality disorder presents itself.

Thankfully, Mary Trump knows far more than her uncle about matters of the mind and of government, as quickly becomes apparent in "The Daily Wrap Up" post yesterday at "The Good in Us," her Substack page. Mary writes:

This weekend, after Donald’s fake ceasefire was threatened by Iranians firing on an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, he went on his failing social media site, where he is now also trying to sell weight loss drugs. But mostly, he was interested in threatening more war crimes.

He wrote, “Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz, a total violation of our ceasefire. My representatives are going to Islamabad Pakistan. Iran recently announced that they were closing the strait, which is strange because our blockade has already closed it.” To which I must say, as myself, you cannot close something that was already closed.

But let me continue with Donald’s very well considered, measured, and sane social media post.

They are the ones that, with the closed passage, lose $500 million a day. The United States loses nothing. In fact, many ships are headed right now to the US.

Here is more of what he had to say:

Iran, always wanting to be the tough guy. We are offering a very fair and reasonable deal, and in the spirit of being reasonable and fair, I hope they take it.

And then he continued with this:

I hope they take it because if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single power plant and every single bridge in Iran. No more Mr. Nice guy. If they don’t take the deal, it will be my honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran by other presidents for the last 47 years. It is time for the Iran killing machine to end. 

Donald uses the phrase "No more Mr. Nice guy" -- and in addition to being an apparent tribute to another golf aficionado, rock star Alice Cooper -- it also raises this question: When has Donald Trump ever been a nice guy? (Trivia Time: Has Donald Trump ever played golf with Alice Cooper? The Answer: Yes, and Coop says both he and the prez have been known to cheat at golf.)Then Donald refers to American presidents playing political softball with Iran, raising this question: Are we supposed to believe Donald Trump actually has studied presidential history? While we ponder that question, let's return to Substack for more insights from Mary Trump, who writes:

I think it is important to make the subtext clear, because we know what he is saying. He is threatening to commit war crimes if his demands are not met.

The reason he has to make those demands is because he, single-handedly, has rehabilitated Iran as a factor in the Middle East. Iran is now more powerful than it was before the war and probably than it has been in decades.

Well done, Donald.

The only way he can get himself out of the corner he has painted himself into is to blow the whole country up. Remember the threats of genocide?

Donald has hinted at peace talks this week as the end of a ceasefire draws near. But the process has been so filled with chaos and mixed messages, no one on either side seems to know who might, and who might not, appear. That brings us to Donald's curious "Board of Peace" and his tanking approval ratings. Mary tackles both subjects -- and more:

According to Iran state media, they have not yet decided if they will send a delegation to Pakistan to negotiate with Donald’s representatives. And here is the thing. Why would they?

What they are doing is working. Their propaganda campaign against Donald in particular, and the American government in general, is working. It is driving Donald crazy. It is getting under his skin.

And despite Donald’s protestations to the contrary, by controlling the Strait of Hormuz and starting to impose a toll on every ship allowed through, Iran is getting richer and American taxpayers are suffering.

Last I checked, gasoline is still roughly $3.50 a gallon more expensive than it was before Donald’s illegal and unconstitutional war of choice.

Turns out that, speaking of the American taxpayer, we are going to be providing Donald with $10 billion more for his completely corrupt and inconsequential Board of Peace.

Here is what Donald had to say this weekend:

The Board of Peace is showing how a better future can be built, starting right here in this room. I want to let you know that the United States is going to make a contribution of $10 billion to the Board of Peace. Thank you.

One, with whose authorization? And two, for what?

Mary seems to be catching a whiff of Donald-style corruption. My nose has picked up the same scent. Mary writes: 

Have you noticed that none of the countries on the so called Board of Peace, of which Donald is the chair in perpetuity, is doing anything to help resolve the problems in the Middle East.

Let us check in on Donald’s polling.

Here is what Steve Kornacki has to say:

Donald Trump’s standing with the public now is an approval rating in our poll of just 37 percent. The last time this poll reported out a couple of months ago, it was 39 percent. The big change from then to now, of course, is the launch of the war in Iran and everything that has continued to happen there. So down to 37 percent approval for Trump. Mention Iran and look at this. A big driver of that clearly is how the war is going. Only a third of adults approve of Trump’s handling of the war in Iran. There is a quarter, I should say, one quarter of Republicans say they disapprove. Those who call themselves Republicans. That might be something to keep an eye on. This continues to be a problem for the president -- inflation, the cost of living.

On top of that, somebody in Donald’s administration just told a journalist that gas is most likely going to be above $3 a gallon for the foreseeable future, maybe into 2027, which, by the way, is probably overly optimistic.

So Donald’s polling numbers are in free fall across the board. He is underwater in every single category.

In Mary's estimation, a large segment of the American public -- with a helping hand from the "liberal media" -- is quick to prop up Donald Trump, even when he least deserves it. Here is how Mary puts it: 

We have to act like [Donald's polling numbers are OK], because Americans have very short-term memories. What we need to worry about is what happens if a deal is made in Iran that the American media pretends is some kind of win for Donald.

Because let us be real. No matter what happens, this has been an epic disaster of his making. But if it can be spun differently, it will be spun differently.

One reason for such misplaced optimism is because, let us say for the sake of argument, the Strait opens tomorrow and 100 percent of pre-war traffic is allowed through. Do you know how many weeks it is going to take for us to catch up? Do you know how many weeks, if not months, it is going to take for prices to come down?

As is often the case, oil and gas prices go up quickly, but it takes a very long time to bring them down. So this should be an issue at least through the midterms. Thankfully, this is a bad issue for the Republicans and, of course, for Donald.

But let us not get complacent, because there is a chance that Donald might be able to come to some deal with Iran that is not completely disastrous for the United States, even though it will still be bad for us and good for Iran.

Republicans have griped for so long about a liberal bias in the mainstream media that many Americans have come to believe it. Mary Trump is not one of those believers:

It is the American media’s knee-jerk reaction to turn anything into Donald’s benefit. So we have to worry that the media is going to spin any kind of deal in a way that makes him look good. And because American voters have very short-term memories, they may just think that everything is fine.

In a way, of course, that they did not when Biden was in office.

Why?

Because the American media’s default position is to support Republicans and make them look better than they are, or at least less bad than they are. So we are going to keep an eye on these polls, because they are epically bad for Donald, and they are in free fall. He is underwater across the board. So my advice?

Let us keep it that way.

As Trump plans to bomb Iran's bridges, power plants, he sends amateurs to conduct diplomacy -- while Americans feel "pain at the pump" that won't end soon

(BloomPakistan.com)

Donald Trump is threatening to blow up bridges and power plants in Iran if the country does not reach a deal to end the war Trump started. A few hours after making the threat, Trump said U.S. negotiators will be in Islamabad this evening to begin a new, and perhaps final, round of peace talks. If that sounds like mixed messaging . . . well, it is. And if Trump thinks such an ultimatum will result in a rapid-fire end to the war, an Iranian official suggests that likely will not happen.

Perhaps the question of the moment is this: Do Trump's words appear to constitute a sign that he intends to conduct good-faith negotiations? It doesn't sound like it to my ears; it sounds more like the typical bombast and bullying we have come to expect from Trump, the type of "trash talk" that has caused U.S. standing in the world to plummet. Whenever Trump enters a fray, chaos will likely ensue, so many observers probably do not know what to make of the yin and yang that is present in efforts to resolve a  conflict of Trump's making. One of the most illuminating reports we've seen comes from Yahoo! News, where Jack Brewster writes:

President Trump threatened Sunday to wipe out "every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran" if Tehran walks away from a U.S. nuclear deal, days before a two-week cease-fire expires.

"NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!" Trump wrote.

"They'll come down fast, they'll come down easy and, if they don't take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years,” he added.

He closed the post with one more line: "IT'S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END!"

Let's see if we have this straight: Trump wants to tamp down Iran's "killing machine" as he ramps up a killing machine of his own. That sounds like the work of a well-ordered mind doesn't it? For irony of a different sort, we have this, as Brewster reports:

Hours after the post, the White House said special envoy Steve Witkoff and senior adviser Jared Kushner would land in Islamabad on Monday evening for the next round of talks. Whether Vice President JD Vance will join them is unclear. Axios reported Vance will again lead the U.S. delegation, citing two U.S. officials, while Fox News reported Vance will not make the trip and that Witkoff and Kushner will lead on their own. The White House has not publicly confirmed the roster. It's the second face-to-face round in as many weeks. The first, held April 11-12, ended without a breakthrough.

This apparently has not occurred to Trump, but negotiations might stand a better chance of a breakthrough if he sent representatives who had legit diplomatic credentials and were not riddled with conflicts of interest. That is not Kushner and Witkoff, per a report from Heather Digby Parton at Salon. She labels Trump's tag team "partners in duplicity":

The way money and power converge in our political system, some amount of corruption is probably inevitable. In fact, the system is built for it. But Donald Trump and his cronies have made all the previous cases look like child’s play. As the president himself would say, “We’ve never seen anything like it.” 

And if you want to really see why these prohibitions once existed, you have only to look at Trump’s special envoys for peace: Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, whose lack of experience and conflicts of interest have turned the Middle East into a raging fire and even helped lead to the Iran war.

As this week begins, Kushner and Witkoff face a tight timeline, which might expose their lack of diplomatic cred. We learn more from Jack Brewster at Yahoo!:

A two-week ceasefire between the U.S., Israel and Iran is set to expire Wednesday, giving negotiators a narrow window.

A two-week ceasefire between the U.S., Israel and Iran is set to expire Wednesday, giving negotiators a narrow window.

Trump accused Iran of blowing up the truce a day early. On Saturday, Iranian Revolutionary Guard gunboats opened fire on a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, and a container ship was hit by an "unknown projectile," according to the U.K. Maritime Trade Operations. Trump claimed the gunfire was "aimed at a French Ship, and a Freighter from the United Kingdom."

India's foreign ministry said both vessels were Indian-flagged and summoned Iran's ambassador in New Delhi over the attacks. One of the ships was operated by French shipping giant CMA CGM.

"That wasn't nice, was it?" Trump wrote.

So Trump thinks being a smart aleck will help bring an end to his war? The answer apparently is yes because he doubled down on being a wise ass:

The president also mocked Iran's weekend announcement that it was closing the strait, saying the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports had already shut the waterway down.

"They're helping us without knowing, and they are the ones that lose with the closed passage, $500 Million Dollars a day!" he wrote. "The United States loses nothing." The $500 million figure appears to have come from a Foundation for Defense of Democracies estimate, cited by Fox News on Saturday, that put Iran's daily cost from the U.S. naval blockade at roughly $435 million.

Are Iranian officials taking the Fox News figures as gospel? It doesn't sound like it, per Jack Brewster:

Iran sees it differently. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the lead Iranian negotiator and speaker of Iran's Parliament, said Saturday that any deal would need to move "step-by-step" with reciprocal actions, and that the U.S. had "failed to pressure Iran through ultimatums." He said talks were "far from a final agreement."

Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei went further, calling the continued U.S. naval blockade in the Gulf a “war crime” and saying Washington, not Tehran, was the party pushing the ceasefire toward collapse.

In a post at X, Baqaei wrote:

The United States’ so-called “blockade” of Iran’s ports or coastline is not only a violation of Pakistani-mediated ceasefire but also both unlawful and criminal. It violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter; it constitutes an act of aggression under Article 3(c) of the UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), which explicitly includes the blockade of a state’s ports or coasts among such acts. Moreover, by deliberately inflicting collective punishment on the Iranian population, it amounts to war crime and crime against humanity.

Isn't it interesting that Iranian officials sound more measured, knowledgeable, and diplomatic than Trump and his sycophants? For many Americans, it probably is also depressing. Consider Baqaei's words above, making two citations to UN documents to support his claim that the Trump administration is engaging in war crimes. When has Trump, or the people around him, ever made such a citation? The word "never" comes to my mind. Meanwhile, at gas stations across the U.S., Americans are feeling "pain at the pump." Per Yahoo! News, that isn't likely to end soon: 

Roughly 20% of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude settled around $90 a barrel Friday, down sharply on hopes the waterway was reopening, but the war has knocked out an estimated 10% of global oil supply and damaged more than 80 energy facilities across the region, according to the International Energy Agency

Trump cancels Catholic Church's contract for care of migrant children in Miami, but if legal precedent holds, admin should get thumped in future court cases

(Facebook)

Donald Trump's unprovoked war against the Catholic church reached new depths of derangement yesterday as he canceled an $11-million federal contract with Catholic Charities - apparently because he remains in a snit after Pope Leo was so bold as to question whether it was wise and moral for the U.S. to launch a war against Iran. Trump, however, might not want to get too cozy with his decision to scotch the Catholic contract. That's because his decision appears to run contrary to law on several grounds. While news that Trump had nullified the contract broke yesterday -- and reports tended to focus on the Trump vs. Leo contretemps -- we now know that Trump's unfriendliness toward funding of certain charities dates to the first moments of his second term, which began on Jan. 20, 2025 -- almost four months before Leo became Pope. 

We will return to those issues in a moment, but first, let's get an update on yesterday's events via a report from MS NOW under the headline "Trump administration's depraved crusade against Catholic leaders continues; Amid the White House's attacks on Pope Leo, the administration has canceled an $11-million contract it had with Catholic Charities." Ja'han Jones writes: 

It appears immigrant children have become collateral damage in the Trump administration’s depraved crusade against Catholic leaders.

Amid the White House’s ongoing political attacks on Pope Leo XIV after he rebuked the president’s deadly and economically destructive war with Iran, the administration has canceled an $11 million contract it had with Catholic Charities, a faith-based nonprofit that helps unaccompanied migrant children.

CBS News Miami reported on how the move could affect the Catholic Charities branch in Miami:

The Trump administration has canceled an $11 million federal contract that helps shelter and care for migrant children who enter the United States without a parent or legal guardian — putting a decades-long program in South Florida at risk of shutting down within months.

The decision affects Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami, which has provided services to unaccompanied minors for more than 60 years. Church officials say the sudden loss of funding could force the organization to end its operations tied to migrant children within three months.

It’s not the first time the Trump administration has stripped funding from Catholic charities. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had to sue the Trump administration to pry loose funding the group had been authorized to receive for refugee resettlement. The administration also devastated Catholic Relief Services, a nonprofit that helps administer foreign aid, and precipitated massive cuts and layoffs at the organization with its gutting of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

That takes us back to Jan. 20, 25025, the day of Trump's second term. That's when he issued a series of executive orders targeting immigrant funding by suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), along with other measures -- especially one that directed federal agencies to terminate programs providing cash or non-cash benefits to undocumented immigrants.

In essence, Trump's war with the Catholic church started with an executive order, so it seems reasonable to ask: Are the executive orders in question lawful? The complaint filed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) over funding for refugee resettlement has been settled, with the conference receiving money it was owed. That precludes a court finding on the propriety of the Trump executive order. But the settlement indicates the proceedings probably were not going well for the White House.

Let's take a look at other cases that provide clues about hurdles the administration might face in the Catholic Charities case and similar matters. Potential problems for the administration tend to come in two categories: (1) Failure to issue lawful executive orders; and (2) Improper attempts to usurp the authority of Congress, especially its power of the purse. In a November 2025 case, a federal judge found that Trump improperly used executive orders to usurp Congress. Specifically, the ruling held that the administration sought to dismantle three federal agencies that had been charged by Congress with providing funding for public libraries and museums across the country. The following is from a report on the case at Courthouse News Service:

A Rhode Island federal court has permanently blocked the Trump administration from implementing an executive order that sought to strip federal agencies in charge of funding for things like libraries and museums to the studs.

The injunction stems from a lawsuit filed in April by 21 state attorneys general challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order titled “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy.”

The March order directed seven federal agencies to cut their staff and functions within seven days to “the minimum presence and function required by law,” a move that would have gutted programs supporting libraries, museums, minority-owned small businesses, labor groups and people experiencing homelessness.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr., a Barack Obama appointee, issued a temporary injunction in May, finding the order unlawfully intruded on Congress’ authority. He barred its enforcement against the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

McConnell Jr. later sided with the states again and issued a permanent injunction preventing the implementation of the executive order.

“By now, the question presented in this case is a familiar one: May the Executive Branch undertake such actions in circumvention of the will of the legislative Branch? In recent months, this court — along with other courts across the country — has concluded that it may not. That answer remains the same here,” McConnell Jr. said in his opinion. . . . 

On the merits, he echoed the reasoning as seen in the preliminary injunction. The executive order, he said, offered no rationale or even minimal analysis, and its sweeping termination of grants and programs — along with firing 80–90% of affected agency staff — had a substantial impact on states. Those actions, he concluded, were clearly arbitrary and capricious.

In a major "power of the purse" case, the Trump administration tried to withhold federal grants from sanctuary cities. Here is how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in San Francisco vs. Trump: 

This appeal presents the question of whether, in the absence of congressional authorization, the Executive Branch may withhold all federal grants from so-called “sanctuary” cities and counties. We conclude that, under the principle of Separation of Powers and in consideration of the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants, the Executive Branch may not refuse to disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization. Because Congress has not acted, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara (collectively, the “Counties”). 

Trump never seems to learn from his mounting court losses, so we look for him to make renewed efforts to push Congress aside on matters of spending. This is a big part of the Republican Party's push for a "unilateral executive," which is a fancy term for dictator. Trump has shown that he has dreams of acting as a dictator, and he likely will not let go of that notion easily. If our federal courts function as "citadels of Justice," rather than "fossils of favoritism," Trump should have more losses in his future.

Consider the Miami case regarding care of migrant children, for example. The contract in question, according to published reports, was issued by the Department of Health and Human Services' (HSS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). And that office is funded mostly by an annual appropriation from Congress. That means Trump cannot cancel the contract without the consent of Congress. And that means any future court case on the matter will almost certainly be decided against the administration.

Trump and his acolytes likely will not go down without a fight -- even if they have to appeal to their buddies on the U.S. Supreme Court. John Roberts might be willing to throw the Constitution under the bus in order to favor a Republican president. If not, Team Trump will have little to do aside from its tradition of tossing insults to and fro. From the MS NOW report:

The Trump administration’s crusade against Catholic leaders — particularly those calling for humanity in American politics — has been going on for a while. Last year, shortly after Trump’s second inauguration, Vice President JD Vance — a Catholic convert — suggested Catholic organizations that have received money to help resettle immigrants in the U.S. might actually be doing so for the money, not out of religious conviction.

“Are they worried about humanitarian concerns? Or are they actually worried about their bottom line?” Vance said of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops during an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Trump’s so-called border czar Tom Homan, who is also Catholic, and Vance have been the most prominent Catholics in the administration to effectively throw their support behind the president’s attacks on the pope. This week, Vance publicly warned Pope Leo to “be careful when talking about matters of theology,” while Homan bemoaned Catholic leaders who have expressed sympathy for immigrants caught up in Trump’s racist crackdown. In an appearance on Newsmax, Homan said church leaders should “sit down and let me educate them” on immigration matters and rebuked their outspokenness.

“I’ve spent my whole life in the Catholic Church,” he said. “But I’m disappointed that they want to weigh in on political issues like this.”