Federal Circuit appeals court grants stay on order blocking Trump tariffs, prompting the prez to blame "backroom hustlers" for opposition to his trade policies

Trump tariffs sow uncertainty at U.S. ports (NY Times)

A federal appeals court yesterday approved a request for stay from the Trump administration, pausing an earlier order that had blocked Trump's tariffs and added to uncertainty surrounding Trump's trade policy. Under the headline "Appeals court pauses ruling that blocked Trump’s tariffs," CNN's Dan Berman and Ramishah Maruf report:

A federal appeals court has paused Wednesday night’s ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) that blocked President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s ruling restores Trump’s ability to levy tariffs using the emergency powers he declared earlier this year. The appeals court also ordered that both sides provide written arguments on the question of the blocking of Trump’s tariffs, to be filed by early next month.

The pause adds to the confusion and uncertainty swirling around Trump’s tariffs, which have been a key pillar of his economic policy.

The Court of International Trade ruled Wednesday that Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs.

The Federal Circuit yesterday issued a four-page emergency order, pausing the USCIT directive. From the CNN report:

The Court of International Trade ruled Wednesday that Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs.

The Trump administration immediately appealed the decision, setting the course for a legal battle over the economic policy that Trump promises will re-focus the American economy on manufacturing but that could raise prices for small businesses and consumers.

The pause from the appeals court came less than 24 hours later.

In a lengthy post on his Truth Social platform Thursday evening, Trump argued the USCIT decision undermines presidential power, claiming it would force the president to get Congressional approval for his reciprocal tariffs. The president also called on the Supreme Court to step in and reverse the USCIT decision.

“The U.S. Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11 Judge Panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has just stayed the order by the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade. Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’ What other reason could it be?” Trump wrote.

“Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom ‘hustlers’ must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!” Trump wrote.

Peter Navarro, Trump’s top trade adviser, told reporters that while the pause was not a surprise, the administration is pursuing “all strategic options.”

“We will hear, within the next day or two, at a minimum, from the United States Trade Representative on how we will respond to all of this. We will respond forcefully, and we think we have a very good case with respect to this,” Navarro added.

Navarro suggested that the administration is looking at its other tools to impose tariffs, in addition to appealing the case through the courts.

“I can assure the American people that the Trump tariff agenda is alive, well, healthy and will be implemented to protect you, to save your jobs and your factories and to stop shipping foreign wealth, our wealth, into foreign hands,” he said.

The Liberty Justice Center, which represented several companies suing to stop the tariffs, said in a statement Thursday that the decision by the appeals court “is merely a procedural step as the court considers the government’s request for a longer stay pending appeal.”

“We are confident the Federal Circuit will ultimately deny the government’s motion shortly thereafter, recognizing the irreparable harm these tariffs inflict on our clients,” Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center said in the statement.

As Musk and his chainsaw hit the exits in D.C., a U.S. judge refuses to dismiss a lawsuit that claims DOGE and its job-cutting actions were unconstitutional

Musk and his chainsaw hit the exits (Getty)

Elon Musk's time as a guy who "works fast and breaks things" in the Trump administration is officially over. But Musk might not escape his destructive D.C. reign unscathed. That is because a federal judge has ruled that Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) must face a lawsuit that claims the government-slashing actions Musk led were  unconstitutional. Democracy Docket examines the case under the headline "Judge Says Musk Must Face Lawsuit Over His Role In DOGE." Jacob Knutson reports: 

A federal judge in D.C. Tuesday greenlit lawsuits challenging Elon Musk’s position in the federal government and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as unconstitutional.

Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said 14 states and a group of advocacy organizations plausibly argued that Musk and DOGE’s efforts to slash the government violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

In a 42-page opinion, the judge said Musk appears to lack the legal authority to direct alterations to the government because he is not a Senate-confirmed official and DOGE was never authorized by Congress.

“The Constitution does not permit the Executive to commandeer the entire appointments power by unilaterally creating a federal agency pursuant to Executive Order and insulating its principal officer from the Constitution as an ‘advisor’ in name only,” Chutkan wrote.

Chutkan said plaintiffs have also sufficiently alleged that they were harmed by DOGE’s “unauthorized access” to “private and proprietary information” and other actions.

Many Americans probably are not clear about how DOGE came to exist. Knutson addresses that issue, noting that Chutkan's ruling raises questions about whether DOGE ever was a legitimate government entity. He writes:

President Donald Trump’s creation of DOGE was done without statutory or constitutional basis, the judge said, though she dismissed Trump as a defendant in the lawsuits because she did not want to interfere with “the performance of his official duties.”

In recent weeks, Musk has said he intends to step away from DOGE and politics to instead focus on his private businesses. However, Chutkan said Musk’s decision to step back is irrelevant.

“Even if the DOGE entity and all affiliated positions terminated alongside the DOGE Temporary Service, that does not defeat an Appointments Clause claim,” the judge said.

“President Trump may instruct another individual to lead DOGE and, if he does, States’ Appointments Clause claim may also lie against that individual. Thus, the position is not personal to Musk.”

Trump's attempts to threaten Putin over missile attacks on Ukraine fall flat -- other than providing amusement for members of Russia's state media

Vladimir Solovyov interviews Putin on state TV (Rossiya-1)

 

Donald Trump continues to voice his displeasure with Vladimir Putin's aggressive and deadly tactics against Ukraine. But we have seen little sign that Trump's complaints have had any impact in Putin's home country -- aside from providing a collective chuckle for members of the Russian state media. 

In a jointly published article, The New Republic (TNR) and Yahoo! News examine the current fragile state of the U.S. relationship with its longtime chief adversary. Under the headline "Russian Media Mocks Trump’s Pathetic Attempt to Threaten Putin,"  Hafiz Rashid writes: 

Donald Trump has resorted to vague threats against Vladimir Putin in the hopes of getting him to agree to a ceasefire in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The president posted to Truth Social Tuesday morning claiming that if it wasn’t for him, “lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD,” accusing the Russian president of “playing with fire.”

Trump told the press on Sunday that he was “not happy with what Putin’s doing.”

“He’s killing a lot of people, and I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin. I’ve known him a long time, always gotten along with him, but he’s sending rockets into cities and killing people, and I don’t like it at all,” Trump said. “We’re in the middle of talking and he’s shooting rockets into Kyiv and other cities. I don’t like it at all.”

Trump’s comments follow Russia’s largest drone and missile attack on Ukraine since the start of the invasion in 2022, with a barrage of bombs falling on Kyiv over the weekend. Putin hasn’t officially responded to Trump’s post, but Russian state media mocked the president.

The RT TV Network (formerly Russia Today) is based in Moscow and funded by the Russian government. It recently posted the following, according to a screenshot from Ron Filipowski, an attorney, former prosecutor and Marine, and current editor-in-chief of the Meidas Touch Network:

The TNR/Yahoo! piece provides more examples of Russian media reacting with amusement to Trump's exhortations. They also seem to find a tad of hypocrisy in his words. Rashid writes:

Russian state television dismissed the idea of an immediate ceasefire, with one host asking, “Why would we stop? The enemy is strong and cunning, and we are winning.” TV host Vladimir Solovyov also belittled the U.S.-European alliance, pointing out that Trump was pushing high 50 percent tariffs against the European Union.

Trump has long been deferential to Putin, irking Democrats and even some Republicans, and Putin probably feels as though Trump can do nothing to pressure him. And why would he? Trump has a long history of giving Putin whatever he wants. Meanwhile, Russia continues to bombard Ukraine no matter what Europe or the U.S. says.

J. Michael J. Luttig, a former U.S. judge with strong GOP pedigree, fears Trump's attack on the judiciary could have a "catastrophic end" for the rule of law

 

J. Michael Luttig: Putting country over party -- and Trump (HuffPost)

Donald Trump's abuse of the U.S. justice system could end in catastrophe, a former federal judge, former member of the Reagan administration, and two-time George H.W. Bush appointee says. J. Michael Luttig has been a prominent Republican for almost 45 years and even served as a law clerk to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Conservative credentials do not come much stronger than Luttig's, so when he expresses concern about the danger Donald Trump poses for the rule of law, Americans would be wise to pay close attention. Luttig is one member of the GOP who puts country over party, and that appears to be a major reason he is raising alarms about Trump.

Lee Moran, of HuffPost, examines Luttig's views on a fellow Republican who, as president for a second time, seems determined to push the legislative and judicial branches aside so he can sit astride the executive branch and rule over all. That, of course, would be an authoritarian form of government -- a notion Trump has openly mused about creating for what once was known as the world's greatest democracy. 

What is Luttig's greatest fear about Trump? It appears to be that the president's disrespect for legal and governmental norms will cause our democracy to come crashing down around us. Lee Moran takes a close look at that fear and associated issues under the headline "Conservative Legal Icon’s Chilling Trump Admission: ‘I Don’t Know Where This Ends...’; J. Michael Luttig warned of a “catastrophic end”:

Conservative former federal judge J. Michael Luttig, this weekend, tore into President Donald Trump and his administration for “waging war” on the federal judiciary and the rule of law.

The assault began on Trump’s very first day back in office, Luttig told MSNBC’s Ali Velshi.

And the legal icon admitted: “I don’t know where this ends.”

Luttig, a staunch and vocal critic of Trump’s attacks on democracy, took particular issue with Attorney General Pam Bondi’s accusation that judges who have ruled against the president’s policies and executive orders are “deranged.”

“No, the judges are not deranged, Pam Bondi,” said Luttig.

“They are simply enforcing their oath to the Constitution of the United States. The same oath that you, Madam Attorney General, took yourself,” he pointed out.

Then Luttig confessed:

“I don’t know where this ends . . . but it appears that, in this moment, the president intends to prosecute this war against the federal judiciary and the rule of law to its catastrophic end.”

Luttig's concerns clearly go well beyond Pam Bondi to Trump himself. Moran writes:

Earlier this month, Luttig argued Trump’s claim of not knowing if he has to uphold the U.S. Constitution was “perhaps the most important words ever spoken by a president of the United States.”

“The temptation here is to dismiss the president’s words as just another gaffe, of which he makes many. But I don’t think we should do that,” he said.

“I’m quite confident that the president was saying what is on his mind and that is that he, the president of the United States, doesn’t necessarily believe that he is obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States, as it is interpreted by the Supreme Court,” added Luttig, who advised Trump first-term Vice President Mike Pence on rejecting Trump’s bid to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Trump's statement that he didn't know if he was obligated to uphold the Constitution surely was disconcerting to many rational, informed Americans -- excepting the most rabid MAGA diehards. But Luttig's reaction seemed to go beyond "disconcerting" to "disturbing" -- likely because he has been around politics and the law long enough to know that nothing Trump says or does can be normalized.

In a jointly published article at HuffPost and Yahoo! News, here is Lee Moran's take on Trump's admission that he is more or less clueless about the Constitution:

Conservative former federal judge J. Michael Luttig on Monday sounded the alarm over Donald Trump’s recent remark that he doesn’t know if he is obligated to uphold the U.S. Constitution, calling it “perhaps the most important words ever spoken by a president of the United States.”

Luttig, a longtime critic of Trump’s anti-democratic rhetoric, told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace: “The president always says what’s on his mind with almost perfect clarity of what is on his mind. Now, sometimes what’s on his mind is confusing, but the words that he chooses are perfectly clear as to his confusion. . . .”

Luttig characterized Trump’s statement as a form of “constitutional denialism,” the school of thought that argues the Constitution doesn’t mean what the Supreme Court interprets it to be.

What Trump believes about his obligation to uphold the Constitution “is one of, if not the single most important issue of our times,” Luttig concluded.

In Donald Trump's America, Memorial Day is a time for grief, grift, and golf -- not necessarily in that order. Who could have time to remember the fallen?

(Geddry Newsletter)

 

Of the thousands of words written on or about Memorial Day 2025, perhaps no one summed up the meaning of the holiday in Donald Trump's America better than Mary Geddry, publisher of the Oregon's Bay Area (OBA) Facebook page. Apparently written from Coos County, OR, the page is one of the most thoughtful and well-written meditations I've seen on postmodern life, as many Americans fight off fear and despair while grieving for a once-great nation in decline.

As with any social-media page (including mine!) that addresses Trump's second term in the White House, OBA's subject matter can be dark, but Geddry possesses a true "writer's touch," producing commentary that is both engaging and enlightening. She even injects humor into the fray, often in posts where you might least expect it, but where it is most appreciated. Anyone who can make you think -- and laugh -- as we are held hostage by Trump's endless stream of whims and grievances, needs to be read. I highly recommend her voice as one that deserves your attention -- not just on holidays, but every day. In addition to her Facebook page, Geddry publishes a newsletter at Substack.

What is Geddry's take on Memorial Day 2025? Under the headline "Memorial Day in Trump’s America: Grief, Grift, and Golf; As the nation mourns its fallen, Trump wages war on decency, from vile holiday posts and empty promises to veterans to a foreign policy built on delay and delusion," she writes:

Good morning! On this Memorial Day, while millions of Americans honor the fallen with solemn remembrance, President Donald Trump is doing what he does best: making it about himself.

Trump is scheduled to lay a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery before delivering prepared remarks at the Memorial Amphitheater, a ceremony traditionally meant to unify a grieving nation. Later, he’ll reportedly spend the afternoon golfing at his Virginia club, which, for Trump, counts as tribute if you squint hard enough. After all, isn’t freedom just the right to overcharge taxpayers for cart rentals?

But if you thought the day might be spared from partisan bile, think again. Before the wreath hit the ground, Trump took to Truth Social to post a holiday greeting that was so petty that it almost deserves its own headstone. In his Memorial Day missive, the sitting president referred to Joe Biden as a “decrepit corpse” and called for the arrest of his political opponents, nothing for Gold Star families. No words for veterans lost to suicide, homelessness, or addiction. Just another barely literate outburst from a man whose relationship with dignity has always been… strained.

While Trump's motorcade rolls through Arlington’s gates, his rhetoric continues to bulldoze what’s left of presidential decorum. At a time when the country is meant to reflect on sacrifice and unity, Trump delivers derision and division. Some might call it tone-deaf. Others might call it Monday.

And the irony? Today also marks his administration's big promise to house thousands of homeless veterans, just not in any way that makes sense, adds up, or includes basic details.

On May 9, Trump signed an executive order declaring that the West Los Angeles VA campus, nearly 400 acres of prime federal land long squandered on private school athletic fields and sweetheart leases, will now become the “National Center for Warrior Independence.” The goal? To house 6,000 homeless veterans by 2028. Sounds noble, right? Until you look at the fine print, or the lack thereof.

The plan blindsided local VA officials, according to several sources, and it’s not clear if the administration intends to house vets from across the nation there, or just inflate the number for dramatic effect. Advocates in Los Angeles, long frustrated by inaction, cautiously welcomed the announcement, even as they pointed out that the administration is still pursuing a federal court appeal to reduce the number of temporary housing units currently mandated for the campus. So, to recap: the White House is promising double the housing while still legally fighting to deliver less than half. It’s a campaign slogan with delusions of grandeur.

Congressman Brad Sherman, who represents the district, noted that the order's funding mechanism is listed as “money that would otherwise be spent on housing or other services for illegal aliens,” which is not a budget so much as a Fox News chyron. Sherman, a Democrat, said it “reads more like a campaign press release than an actual plan.” Still, if Trump manages to house even a fraction of those 6,000 vets, I’ll gladly eat crow, provided there’s not a nondisclosure agreement attached.

The above is an example of Geddry's ability not only to produce sharp analysis, but also to provide the latest on breaking stories. White House plans to launch its "National Center for Warrior Independence," with the goal of housing 6,000 homeless veterans by 2028, had escaped my attention. It sounds oddly utopian for an idea that springs from the Trump administration. But Geddry informs us that its funding mechanism is shaky, and the White House's heart doesn't seem to really be into the project. Perhaps its Trump's response to all the comments about "suckers and losers" he has directed toward veterans -- and suggested Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, be executed. Trump must have been counting on us forgetting all of that. Geddry then turns her attention to international affairs:

Meanwhile, abroad, Russia decided to mark Memorial Day by reminding the world just how little it respects human life. On the night of May 25–26, Moscow launched its largest drone and missile barrage since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, 364 aerial weapons in a single wave, including nine cruise missiles and over 350 Shahed-type UAVs. Ukraine’s air defense systems intercepted most of them, but debris rained down in multiple regions, and strikes were confirmed in at least five. It was a message with no military logic, only political venom.

President Zelensky called it what it was: “a demonstration of how much Putin despises the world.” Trump’s response? A vague, disinterested statement calling the attacks “needless,” while his own Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, condemned them as “shameful.” One gets the sense that Trump would be more animated if the drones had hit a golf course.

Back at home, German automakers have begun halting shipments to the U.S. in response to Trump’s tariff tantrums, even as he quietly kicked the can down the road on his planned 50% tariff hike on the European Union. In a rare act of apparent diplomacy, Trump delayed the tariff increase until July 9 after a call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. He called the extension a “privilege” and claimed negotiations would begin “rapidly,” which might mean as early as the 4th tee.

But even the punt couldn't stop the bleeding. American importers are still grappling with a 10% tariff set to double if no deal is reached, and EU manufacturers are already rerouting goods. The free market Trump claims to champion is looking more like a mud pit, one where he sells tickets and owns the concession stand.

A powerful Fault Lines investigation in partnership with Mother Jones and Al Jazeera exposes how private equity destroyed lives at Steward Health Care, once the largest for-profit hospital chain in the U.S. The story of Shinja, who died hours after childbirth when the hospital lacked a basic embolism coil it couldn't afford, and the heartbreaking death of newborn Lily after delays and misrepresentation about NICU access, highlight the carnage left in the wake of Cerberus Capital’s extractive business model. Incredibly, the firm tripled its investment, the CEO bought two private jets, and lawsuits were frozen by bankruptcy while families grieved. U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) called it “unconscionable.” He's right. This is necro-capitalism.

Elsewhere in dystopia, Trump, Elon Musk, and UFC’s Dana White appeared ringside together last November at UFC 309, just days after Trump won the election, in what can only be described as a petrostate-funded fever dream. Seated nearby: Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the governor of Saudi Arabia’s $930 billion Public Investment Fund, which has entangled itself in everything from UFC events to Musk’s ventures. The optics weren’t subtle. A victorious Trump basked in adoration, flanked by billionaires with no interest in democracy, while one of the world’s most repressive regimes quite literally sat in the front row. The spectacle was less about sport and more about soft power projection, with Trump once again choosing the flattery of authoritarians over any pretense of national sovereignty.

Coupled with his recent Middle East trip, where Trump skipped democratic allies and instead courted Gulf autocrats, cut backroom energy deals, and praised “strong leadership” in the region, the message is unmistakable. He’s not just aligning with authoritarians; he’s taking notes. When Trump stands shoulder to shoulder with oil oligarchs and tech moguls while American institutions crumble at home, it’s clear where his loyalties lie, and it’s not with the Constitution.

As for the "grift" part of Geddry's headline, there never is a shortage of that when it comes to Trump. It looks like his first term will be remembered as positively spotless when compared to what is happening now. Geddry closes with a word of hope by turning to the worlds of music and sports:

And then, there’s the $148 million “meme coin” donor dinner. Or rather, the brief cameo by helicopter where Trump said a few words, ignored everyone who paid to be there, and vanished. The food was terrible, the security was thin, and the only thing guests took home was buyer’s remorse and the faint smell of jet fuel. Somehow, this man turned grifting into a presidential art form.

But don’t worry, he's got plans to eliminate the penny next year. The Treasury has announced a gradual wind-down of one-cent coin production, citing inefficiencies and cost. Rounding will begin soon, but fear not: Americans can still cling to their pennies just like we cling to norms, oversight, and functioning institutions by habit, not hope.

And finally, a couple rays of light to pierce the gloom: today would have been Miles Davis’s birthday, a reminder that brilliance can be born even in the most turbulent of times. His music bent reality, redefined genres, and still echoes with radical cool. Meanwhile, off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, a swimmer named Lewis Pugh is trying to change how we see sharks, not as movie monsters, but as vital guardians of ocean ecosystems. In an era of chaos and cruelty, both Davis and the sharks are reminders that harmony and balance are still possible, if we choose them.

So on this Memorial Day, we remember the fallen, honor the sacrifice, and watch, helpless and aghast, as the Commander-in-Chief makes a mockery of both.

If you would like to communicate with Mary Geddry, her email is cooscommons@gmail.com.

Kristi Noem's "abject stupidity" is on gaudy display as she flunks a "junior high civics test" by scrambling to find answers before Congress on habeas corpus

Kristi Noem: Getting schooled on habeas corpus (AP)

 

One might expect that a cabinet secretary in a U.S. presidential administration could pass a junior-high civics test. But an article at Alternet suggests that is not the case with current Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Jessica Corbett expounds on that idea under the headline "'Abject stupidity': Critics pounce as Kristi Noem fails junior high civics test":

Fueling further alarm over the Trump administration's lurch toward authoritarianism, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not accurately describe the principle of habeas corpus when asked a question that may appear on a junior high school student's civics exam during a Tuesday morning Senate hearing.

"So Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?" Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) asked during the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing about the fiscal year 2026 budget request.

"Well," Noem responded, "habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right to—"

At that point, Hassan cut her off, saying: "Let me stop you... That's incorrect... Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people."

"If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason," Hassan continued. "Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. As a senator from the 'Live Free or Die' state, this matters a lot to me and my constituents, and to all Americans."

Even with Hassan's help, Noem still did not seem to get the idea. In other words, the "teacher" was helping her, but Noem remained lost on a junior-high civics exam. It's like she was failing an open-book test. Corbett reports:

"So, Secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides that the government must provide a public reason in order to detain and imprison someone?" the senator asked.

The secretary replied: "Yeah, I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not. Let us be clear, though, that this president—"

Hassan interjected again, pointing out that "it has never been done without approval of Congress," and even former President Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval for his suspension during the U.S. Civil War.

At this point, Hassan must have been thinking, "How did this "student" ever get into my classroom, and how am I going to get rid of her?" Many others seemed o be thinking, "How low is the bar for intellectual capacity in the Trump administration? Answer: That bar is laying on the ground. All you have to do is step over it. Corbett writes:

Lawyers, journalists, and other critics described Noem's remarks as "highly concerning," "embarrassing," and "jaw-dropping."

"This is extraordinary," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "The secretary of Homeland Security doesn't know what the right of habeas corpus is (the ancient right to go to court to challenge government detention) and offers an incoherent definition which suggests she thinks it's a presidential power to deport people?"

Independent journalist and legal analyst Katie Phang declared that "the level of abject stupidity" in President Donald Trump's Cabinet picks "is mindblowing."

That is an admission that Noem is not alone in her ignorance on the Trump cabinet. She has company in the form of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and others. (I'm not sure it's accurate to say Bondi is ignorant, but she certainly is ethically challenged, as we will show in a series of upcoming posts. As for Patel, he probably isn't ignorant either, but we've seen signs that he isn't serious about his job, preferring to boogie  down at nightclubs and jet around to hockey games, where he can be seen schmoozing with Hall of Famer Wayne Gretzky. Corbett writes:

Habeas corpus is Latin for "that you have the body." As Cornell University's Legal Information Institute (LII) explains: "In the U.S. system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful."

The U.S. Constitution states that "the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

LII notes that "only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the executive. The executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ." Since the late 1700s, Congress has passed various related laws.

By this time, Noem probably wanted to exit the building and head out into a field, where she could find a dog or goat to fatally shoot. But pesky U.S. senators would not leave her alone:

Habeas corpus is Latin for "that you have the body." As Cornell University's Legal Information Institute (LII) explains: "In the U.S. system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful."

The U.S. Constitution states that "the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

LII notes that "only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the executive. The executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ." Since the late 1700s, Congress has passed various related laws. 

Later in Tuesday's hearing, Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) asked Noem, "Can you confirm to us that you understand that any suspension of habeas corpus requires an act of Congress?"

Noem said: "President Lincoln executed habeas corpus in the past with a retroactive action by Congress. I believe that any president that was able to do that in the past, it should be afforded to our current-day president."

"This president has never said that he's going to do this," Noem continued. "He's never communicated to me or his administration that they're going to consider suspending habeas corpus, but I do think the Constitution allows them the right to consider it."

Trump's second administration has framed unauthorized immigration as "the invasion at the southern border."

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told reporters earlier this month that "the Constitution is clear—and that of course is the supreme law of the land—that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion, so it's an option we're actively looking at" as part of the Trump administration's pursuit of mass deportations. 

Miller suggested the possible suspension of habeas corpus—or attempt at it—depends on what courts do. The Trump administration has targeted multiple legal immigrants who have been critical of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip for deportation. Some of them have recently been freed from detention by federal judges in response to their legal teams filing habeas corpus petitions.

Republicans narrowly control both chambers of Congress, but it's not clear all GOP members would support a suspension.

"I was a conservative Republican long before Donald Trump became a Republican, joined the Reform Party, became a Democrat, became a Republican again, became an Independent, and finally returned to the Republican Party," David Chung, an editorial fellow at Iowa's The Gazette, wrote Sunday. "But after reading this column, I'm sure some of my Republican friends will accuse me of being a RINO—a Republican in Name Only."

Chung highlighted that after Miller's remarks, during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing last Wednesday, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) asked Noem if the current state of illegal immigration into the United States met the "invasion" requirements for a suspension. The secretary said, "I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe it does."

In implementing Trump's deportation scheme, Homeland Security deals with habeas corpus; but to Kristi Noem, the term derives from a foreign language

Kristi Noem: A deer in headlights (USA Today)

As secretary of homeland security, Kristi Noem is a central figure in Donald Trump's scheme to unlawfully deport alleged illegal immigrants to far-flung facilities around the globe, usually with no sign that due process of law has played any role in the proceedings. One might think that Noem would be familiar with some of the legal concepts associated with such a massive and complex effort. But based on Noem's testimony before a Congressional committee this week, her knowledge of concepts such as habeas corpus, which comes straight from the U.S. Constitution (most prominently in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2) is as thin as dental floss -- and less weighty

How embarrassing was Noem's testimony for the Trump administration -- and the country. Some observers have referred to it as a "face palm." Details on Noem's almost comical performance come from Inae Oh, writing at Mother Jones under the headline "Does Kristi Noem Even Know What Habeas Corpus Is? The Homeland Security secretary’s word salad raised even more questions about the administration’s assault on fundamental rights":

Days after the Trump administration threatened an attempt to suspend habeas corpus in an effort to bulldoze due-process protections for its mass deportation campaign, one key Cabinet member seems a bit confused about the scheme.

“What is habeas corpus?” Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire asked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a committee hearing Tuesday.

“Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to—,” Noem responded, before a visibly alarmed Hassan intervened.

A Republican in attendance, wanting to save face for his party, might have been tempted to pull the plug on Noem's testimony. But her microphone remained in the on position, producing answers that were painfully loud and clear. Oh writes:

“Let me stop you,” the Democratic lawmaker interjected. “Excuse me, that is incorrect.”

“President Lincoln used it,” Noem insisted.

Hassan then corrected the record: “Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires the government to provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason.”

“I support habeas corpus,” Noem said later in the exchange. “I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not.”

That suggested Noem was not content to dig a small hole for herself. She wanted to dig a nice deep one -- and so she continued, as Oh reports:

But in response to similar claims from the administration, a number of legal experts have noted that it is actually “clear from the Constitution’s text and structure” that only Congress, not the president unilaterally, can suspend habeas corpus. Among other things, the suspension clause at issue appears in Article I of the Constitution, which lays out the powers of Congress. According to George Mason law professor Ilya Somin, “most legal scholars” believe that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus, and Georgetown’s Steve Vladeck described this as a “near-universal consensus.”

Hassan emphasized this point on Tuesday. “It has never been done without approval of Congress,” she said. “Even Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval from Congress.”

What was Noem to do at this point? Keep on talking, of course:

Later in the hearing . . . Noem admitted she was unaware of key aspects of this argument. Asked by Sen. Andy Kim if she knew where in the Constitution the suspension of habeas corpus was discussed, Noem replied: “I do not. Nope.”

So, some simple questions emerge: Does the secretary know what habeas corpus is? Does she understand that it is a fundamental right belonging to individuals and not a dictatorial privilege belonging to the president? Do she and her administration colleagues know who can suspend habeas corpus and when?

Her responses on Tuesday don’t inspire confidence.

After a two-hour phone call in which Putin shows he has little use for Trump, the U.S. president appears to head for the exit with the vow "This Is Not My War"

(CNN)

Did anything worthwhile come out of this week's phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, which was billed as an attempt to end Russia's war with Ukraine?  Most reports have indicated little progress was made toward peace -- some even said the effort had failed -- but one observer noted a development of substance: Putin established himself as the dominant figure in any negotiations that might occur, while Trump is reduced to a bit player who appears ready to toss the whole thing out of his lap. That is  the view of CNN's Nick Paton Walsh, who writes from Kyiv, Ukraine, under the headline "Putin just showed Trump how little he needs him":

“The root causes of the conflict.”

These were startling words from a man purportedly on the path to peace.

But it is the nub of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s position of what must be solved for peace, after two weeks, or three months, depending on how you count, of mounting pressure for an immediate unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Unbothered, taking this most consequential of calls at a music school on the Sochi coast, the Kremlin head has returned to the start – to his false narrative about this war of choice being sparked by NATO expanding too fast.

Five other, different words emerged hours before, that may have echoed in Putin’s ears while he spoke to US President Donald Trump for two hours.

“It is not our war,” said Vice President JD Vance earlier. Reprising his role as the harbinger of very bad news for European security, Vance held out again this remarkable non-threat: that the United States might pull out of the war – presumably from both diplomacy and aid to Ukraine – unless Russia takes steps toward a peace deal it adamantly does not want. Washington backing off is exactly what Russia yearns for, and to earn this dream outcome, it seems Putin has to do absolutely nothing, other than continuing to wage a brutal war.

Moments after the call, Trump already sounded like a man stepping back from the fray. Five days earlier he had been the febrile intermediary, the peacemaker willing to bridge the enmity between Putin and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky for a meeting in Turkey. But after his Monday call with Putin, he simply said Ukraine and Russia must talk directly, “as only they can.” He even passed the task to the home of the new American Pope, the Vatican, as a possible venue. The United States may not be out of the process entirely, but it talks like it wants someone else to lead it.

What happened to the presidential candidate who bragged leading into the 2024 U.S. election that, if elected, he could end the war "in 24 hours"? Did anybody believe that then? Not even Trump appears to believe it now. Instead, the cocky candidate has become the hapless president -- and his words on the campaign trail now sound like they came from the mouth of a fool, a con man, or both. Paton Walsh writes:

The last 10 days have been a vivid reminder of how little Putin really needs POTUS or his approval. And the logic is simple.

For the best part of three years of war, Russia’s state media has been lecturing its audience they are not only in conflict with Ukraine, but also with all of NATO, including the United States. The presidency of Trump has created a small window in which the Kremlin might talk its way into a better position, or even alleviate the pain of some Western sanctions. But it does not change the central calculation or message of the Kremlin: this is an existential war, about re-establishing their pre-eminence in their near abroad. So much pain and loss has been inflicted on the Russian people through staggering war casualties that delivering middling to poor results might significantly limit the longevity of Russia’s leadership. This isn’t a war they can be seen to have lost.

The limits of what the United States can offer Russia at the moment, in terms of leverage, are visible from space. Yes, the US could escalate sanctions, even, as Trump mulled last week, adding “secondary sanctions” against Russia’s financiers, the oil purchasers of India and China. But that would cause another trade-like rift with world powers that Washington has just made good with. The US could alternatively ease sanctions to coax Russia into concessions. But those kid gloves would irk their European allies, and likely falter without Europe’s practical support.

Any further steps to cause Moscow pain would likely mean Trump had gone further to punish Russia than his predecessor Joe Biden did. That is not the MAGA geopolitical gameplan. It would deepen US involvement in a war where there is, frankly, no end in sight, until one side falters, or sees drastic change in political leadership.

Ukraine in 2025 is a bleak prospect. But the central tenet of European policy was the best choice in a world of ghastly options: Moscow could only be forced into reducing its goals if it saw an infinitely united NATO before it. Its economy, reserve wealth, manpower, or hardware might falter – only one needs to for the war machine to stutter. It is bleak, but Europe is left with little choice. Ukraine has no choice at all.

Trump felt he has a choice. His business acumen sees no merit in a long-term investment in a conflict with an enemy you’d prefer to get along with, the best outcome from which is to return Europe to the peace it knew before. There is no deal to be made here. Putin is not buying anything; he seeks to conquer and take. Trump has nothing to sell, bar the United States’ backing for its traditional allies. There is no way Putin and Trump can both win and retain their stature.

Trump took the reins of a nation that enjoyed extraordinary prestige on the world stage. But his bullying leadership, his disdain for human rights and the rule of law, his foreign policy missteps, and an economy placed on shaky ground by Trump's misplaced belief in tariffs have given many Americans the sense that their best days are slipping away. Trump now seems to be pulling back from leadership in a  conflict he says is "not my problem." He even has said "this is not my war." Those don't sound like they will go down among the inspiring quotes in American history. Paton Walsh examines the present and sees a diminished America in the future:

American leadership has for decades been built around something other than good, small deals. Its benevolence toward allies, vast soft power, and military hegemony, has left it the biggest economy on earth, with an undefeatable currency – itself a very good and huge deal.

But Trump sees America’s role as smaller. This may be the moment Trump finally understood Putin as someone who really doesn’t seek his approval or allegiance, and stepped back. If it is, the United States too has stepped back from decades of calling the shots, admitted the limits of its focus and power, and left the most important peace deal since the 1940s to a Hail Mary pass at the Vatican. 

Trump calls for probe of Springsteen, Oprah, Beyonce, and more for campaign-related violations -- but the prez provides no evidence and is off target on the law

Bruce Springsteen: "The Boss" becomes Trump's obsession (Getty)

 

Donald Trump is calling for an investigation of Bruce Springsteen, Beyonce, Oprah Winfrey, and other celebrities he claims were paid to endorse Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Trump makes the accusation even though the government agency that likely would head any probe has said such payments are not unlawful as long as candidates list them as expenditures on filing documents. 

The Guardian examines the issue under the headline "Trump claims without evidence that celebrities were paid to endorse Harris; President urges ‘major investigation’ of Beyoncé, Oprah, Bruce Springsteen and others in late-night social media rant." Rachel Leingang reports:

Donald Trump laced into a few celebrities who endorsed Kamala Harris in late night and early morning screeds on Monday, saying he would investigate them to see if they were paid for the endorsements – repeating a common refrain on the right about the star-studded list of Harris supporters.

“How much did Kamala Harris pay Bruce Springsteen for his poor performance during her campaign for president?” Trump posted in all caps on Truth Social at 1.34am Monday. “Why did he accept that money if he is such a fan of hers? Isn’t that a major and illegal campaign contribution? …And how much went to Oprah, and Bono???”

He said he would “call for a major investigation” into the issue, claiming Harris was illegally paying for endorsements “under the guise of paying for entertainment” and that these efforts artificially boosted her campaign and crowds.

“IT’S NOT LEGAL! For these unpatriotic ‘entertainers,’ this was just a CORRUPT & UNLAWFUL way to capitalize on a broken system,” Trump wrote.

Does Donald Trump claiming something is illegal make it so? No, it does not. In fact, as we have shown several times over the years, Trump is notoriously ignorant of the law. He doesn't seem to know what basic terms, such as probable cause and due process, mean. He doesn't know that presidents have a duty to protect and defend the constitution. Trump was not finished with his overnight rant. He added more invective once the sun had risen, Leingang writes:

On Monday morning, he expanded his claims and said without evidence that Beyoncé was paid $11 million to walk on stage and endorse Harris without performing.

“This is an illegal election scam at the highest level! It is an illegal campaign contribution! Bruce Springsteen, Oprah, Bono and, perhaps, many others, have a lot of explaining to do!!!” Trump wrote in all caps.

Trump is increasingly using the US justice department to carry out his retribution agenda, directing it to investigate his opponents and end investigations into his allies. These moves have led some legal experts to call the department Trump’s “personal law firm”.

Trump, a frequent courter of celebrities, has recently taken aim at several high-profile performers who endorsed or otherwise supported Harris.

Leingang adds to the picture by showing that Trump's idea of a campaign violation does not square with what officials from the Federal Election Commission have stated. She writes:

After Bruce Springsteen spoke out strongly against the Trump administration for its stripping of freedoms, Trump called the New Jersey icon a “dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker”. Before that, he wrote on Truth Social wondering whether “anyone noticed that, since I said ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,’ she’s no longer ‘HOT?’”

The law does not ban candidates from paying for endorsements, the Federal Election Commission told the factchecking outlet Verify in 2022. Though, candidates could run into trouble if they don’t specifically list that an expenditure to a campaign was in exchange for an endorsement.

Trump appears to be relying on material that has been making the rounds in conservative circles for years. For now, it seems he hasn't come up with anything unlawful or anything that is new. His allegations look like baseless retreads, Leingang writes:

The claims that Harris paid celebrities to endorse her are not new, but Trump didn’t offer any evidence to support them. The Harris campaign has denied it paid anyone to endorse her, and the celebrities involved have also denied they were paid for an endorsement.

Campaign finance reports show Oprah’s production company, Harpo, was paid $1m for a town hall event by the Harris campaign, while Beyoncé’s production company was paid $165,000.

Oprah has strenuously denied being paid any money to endorse Harris. She wrote on Instagram that she “was not paid a dime” but that “the people who worked on that production needed to be paid. And were. End of story.” Her company brought in set design, lights, cameras, crew, producers, benches, chairs – anything required to carry out the event, she said.

Tina Knowles, Beyoncé’s mother, posted about false claims circulated by the rightwing media personality Candace Owens about Beyoncé getting paid to endorse.

“The lie is that Beyonce was paid 10 million dollars to speak at a rally in Houston for Vice President Kamala Harris. When In Fact : Beyonce did not receive a penny for speaking at Presidential candidate Kamala Harrris’s Rally in Houston. In fact she actually paid for her own flights for her and her team, and total Glam,” Knowles wrote.

The Harris campaign told Deadline after the 2024 election that campaign finance laws required them to pay for some costs of a performance, like travel or production, but that the campaign had never paid a fee to artists or performers who appeared on the campaign trail.

A spokesperson told the outlet the campaign had followed all campaign finance laws “religiously”.