Trump Target: The president, prone to bashing judges, sinks to new depths, calling for impeachment of James Boasberg, who ruled against him in deportation case

Judge James Boasberg (NY Times)

Donald Trump has a lengthy history of bashing judges who rule against him or his interests. Now, Trump has taken it a step further, saying one such judge should be impeached. The latest Trump target is U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, of Washington, D.C., who had the audacity to find a few problems with Trump's deportation efforts, apparently thinking deportees actually have legal rights that weren't being observed. Perhaps even worse from Trump's perspective, Boasberg seems unperturbed to be the target of presidential invective, letting it roll off his robes.

Even with Republican allies joining Trump's impeachment chorus, Boasberg shows no signs of concern. So what is next in a case where the Trump administration appeared to ignore a judicial order to turn a plane around and return deportees to the United States where they were to receive -- oh, I don't know -- due process maybe? A jointly published story at Bloomberg and Yahoo! News addresses that question under the headline "Trump Call for Impeaching Judges Fuels Showdown With Courts."Write Erik Larson, Greg Stohr and Zoe Tillman:

After a string of legal losses for his administration, President Donald Trump’s call to impeach a federal judge — and an ensuing rebuke by the US Supreme Court chief justice — is laying the groundwork for a deepening clash between the White House and the judiciary.

Hours after Trump blasted a federal judge for trying to block the deportation of hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement saying that impeachment is “not an appropriate response” to disagreement with court rulings. For the Republican-appointed justice, it was a rare public signal of pushback to the president. Here is the full statement from Roberts: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate-review process exists for that purpose.”

The rare statement came just hours after a social media post from Trump, who described U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg as an unelected “troublemaker and agitator.” Boasberg had issued an order blocking deportation flights that Trump was carrying out by invoking wartime authorities from an 18th century law. Here is Trump's message for the judge, written on his social-media platform, Truth Social:

“HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

That Trump's broadside would prompt a response from Roberts is way out of the ordinary. Larson, Stohr and Tillman write:

“This kind of public rebuke from a chief justice of a president is extremely unusual,” said Keith Whittington, a Yale Law School professor and expert on constitutional law. “It’s a very serious and pretty extraordinary ratcheting up of tension between the White House and the judicial branch.”

The relationship between the co-equal branches of government is becoming increasingly strained as the Trump administration hits back at judges who side with those challenging his executive orders on issues from immigration to federal spending and diversity initiatives.

There are more than 150 cases pending against the administration from Maryland to California — setting up multiple tests of executive power that may ultimately land in the Supreme Court that Trump helped shape. Some judges have already called out the Trump administration for not following their orders.

Such scenarios have led some legal experts to say the nation is nearing a constitutional crisis. That’s not the case unless Trump openly defies a court order, which hasn’t really happened yet, said Whittington. But if “a president were to refuse to comply with a direct court order that would certainly get us closer,” he said. “And then the question is how other institutions respond.”

Retired Justice Stephen Breyer said on CNN Wednesday that it isn’t clear whether the country is in a constitutional crisis.

“No one really knows,” he said. “People have different views on that. And the best thing, I think, for the judges is you follow the law. You simply follow the law.”

That appears to be what Boasberg is doing. So what launched Trump's latest attack on the judiciary? From the Bloomberg/Yahoo! report:

The current dispute was triggered by Trump’s deportation of alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador by invoking the seldom-used Alien Enemies Act. US District Judge James Boasberg in Washington issued an order to temporarily stop the deportation of the five Venezuelans, and later halted use of the law to deport any of the alleged gang members.

Lawyers from Trump's Justice Department have said the judge lacked power to order airplanes to turn around — at one point arguing the order didn’t apply because it was initially handed down orally from the bench — and has refused to answer some of his questions about the deportation flights. The department has asked a federal appeals court to take the judge off the case, saying his questions were “flagrantly improper” and presented “grave risks.”

The White House declined to comment for this article. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down at a press briefing Wednesday, saying that judges who are ruling against Trump are acting as “partisan activists.”

“We will continue to comply with these orders and fight in court, but there is a concerted effort by the far left to judge shop and pick judges who act as partisan activists from the bench,” she said. “We will not allow that to happen.”

As usual, Leavitt is clueless. George W. Bush originally appointed Boasberg to the federal bench (and Barack Obama later elevated him), so the tired "far left" argument doesn't work. Even Trump shows some restraint -- maybe even knowledge -- in comparison to Leavitt:

Trump derided Boasberg, without specifically naming him, as a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator.” He reiterated his criticism in a Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham late Tuesday, saying that a “local judge” shouldn’t be making determinations about deportations. “Many people have called for his impeachment, the impeachment of this judge,” he said.

Earlier in the day, Boasberg issued an order extending by one day the government’s deadline to produce additional information about the deportations. The judge said the court needs the information “to determine if the government deliberately flouted its orders issued on March 15, 2025, and, if so, what the consequences should be.”

Trump denied defying a court order on Fox News and when pressed on whether he would do so in the future, he said “no, you can’t do that.”

“However, we have bad judges,” he added. “At a certain point you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge?”

Robert McWhirter, a constitutional law expert and criminal defense attorney, called the government’s argument that it can disregard the court because a ruling wasn’t issued in writing “absurd.”

“This is an example of the Justice Department playing fast and loose with the judge,” he said, noting that such tactics, coupled with Trump’s attack on the judiciary, could backfire should any of his cases go to the Supreme Court.

“I think even this Supreme Court won’t stand for that,” he said.

McWhirter probably was referring to dubious rulings -- on Trump's apparent disqualification due to his legal status as an insurrectionist and on presidential immunity -- where the high court has favored Trump. Has the legal environment now swung in a different direction?

Broadly speaking, the Supreme Court offers a favorable environment for Trump as he tries to defang the federal bureaucracy and bolster presidential power.

The court’s 6-3 conservative majority includes three Trump appointees. All were in the majority last year when the court gave presidents sweeping criminal immunity, undercutting a federal prosecution of him for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss. Trump denied wrongdoing and a special prosecutor later dropped the case in light of his election win.

But early signs suggest the court’s willingness to stand behind the president in his new term has its limits. The high court first declined to let him immediately fire the head of a federal whistleblower office. Trump was eventually able to carry out the firing but only because of a subsequent lower court decision.

The justices later voted 5-4 not to lift a lower court order that told the administration to quickly pay as much as $2 billion in foreign aid bills. Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett drew scorn in MAGA circles as she joined Roberts and the three liberals in the majority. And the court set out an unusually lengthy briefing schedule — hinting at a lack of urgency — when Trump asked for clearance to start implementing his planned restrictions on birthright citizenship. Roberts had yet to make any public comments on the judiciary since Trump took office. His remarks Tuesday were the first since his annual Dec. 31 report warned that violence, threats to defy lawful judgments and other “illegitimate activity” endanger judicial independence.

Roberts’ statement came from him alone and not on behalf of the entire court. But he is in some ways the only person who can speak for the entire judicial branch, said Kent Greenfield, a constitutional law expert and professor at Boston College Law School.

“Speaking back at Trump for the judicial branch is reasserting the authority of the judiciary to say what the law is,” Greenfield said. “Judges need to keep doing their jobs and I think that’s one reason why Roberts’ statement was so important.”

The dispute is just one unfolding between Trump and the courts. In some of the most high-profile cases, brought by nationwide nonprofits and civil rights groups, as well as unions and Democratic-led states, plaintiffs and judges alike have repeatedly suggested the government isn’t following court orders.

This week, a judge who ordered the administration to rehire thousands of probationary federal employees whom he ruled were fired illegally said workers in at least one agency appear to have been brought back and then placed on administrative leave in potential violation of his directive.

“This is not allowed by the preliminary injunction, for it would not restore the services the preliminary injunction intends to restore,” said William Alsup, the San Francisco-based federal judge.

Government lawyers on Tuesday disputed that the administration was trying to “skirt” the order in the California case. Administrative leave was “merely a first part of a series of steps to reinstate probationary employees,” DOJ lawyers wrote.

In a case over Trump’s spending freeze on trillions of dollars in federal funds for grants, loans and other financial assistance, a group of 19 states told a federal judge in Rhode Island on Monday that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was continuing to withhold millions of dollars in grants despite a court order lifting the freeze.

In a fight over a mass freeze of foreign aid, a federal judge in Washington criticized the government’s failure to resume spending as he ordered. A Seattle judge in another funding fight recently chided the administration’s “unreasonable interpretation” of her orders. Both stopped short of holding the government in contempt, however.

Judges have also called out the White House’s lack of transparency surrounding the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk, who is closely tied to the project.

A Maryland judge told a Justice Department lawyer that the administration’s explanations about Musk’s role were “highly suspicious.” This week, he ruled that challengers were likely to succeed in arguing that the billionaire exercised unconstitutional power in shuttering the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

The growing list of disputes over court orders is “part of an overall disregard on the part of the administration” for judicial authority, said Greenfield.

“These are the cracks in the dam,” he said. “Eventually, if there’s enough, it’s going to break.”

CBS News, under the headline "Judge calls DOJ filing "woefully insufficient" in legal standoff over deportation flights," reports that Boasberg has been unimpressed with the administration's responses to his rulings:

A federal judge on Thursday said the Justice Department "evaded its obligations" with a "woefully insufficient" response to his demand for more information about deportation flights that are at the center of a growing legal stand-off between the Trump administration and the courts.

Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., demanded on Saturday that two deportation flights turn around in midair and return to the U.S. — an order the Trump administration did not follow, saying the flights were outside of U.S. airspace and therefore outside of the judge's jurisdiction. 

The flights carried more than 200 Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador, with the government relying on a wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport them. The law gives the president broad authority to expel foreign nationals during wartime. Boasberg blocked the administration from invoking that authority on Saturday.

In response to the government's failure to comply with his order, Boasberg directed the government to answer a number of questions regarding the flights, including what time the two planes departed from U.S. soil, their points of departure, what time they left U.S. airspace, when they landed and when the deportees were transferred out of U.S. custody. 

Boasberg gave government attorneys a deadline of noon on Thursday to respond. The judge wrote in an order later in the afternoon that the government's response was filed after the deadline and featured only the sworn declaration of an acting ICE official who did not provide any new information in the case.

"This is woefully insufficient," Boasberg wrote.

In his order Saturday, Boasberg blocked not just the deportation of the plaintiffs, but of all potential deportees under the Alien Enemies Act. That order set off a back-and-forth between the judge and the Justice Department over whether the administration knowingly defied his directive to halt the deportations and turn the planes around. 

On Thursday, the judge ordered the government to brief him by next Tuesday on why the failure to return the planes to the U.S. did not violate his temporary restraining order. He also demanded a declaration from "an official with direct involvement" in Cabinet-level discussions over invoking a legal mechanism known as the state secrets privilege. Boasberg set a deadline of 10 a.m. Friday for that declaration.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi and top Justice Department officials said the government may invoke the state secrets privilege as justification for withholding information about the flights from Boasberg. A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency "continues to believe that the court's superfluous questioning of sensitive national security information is inappropriate judicial overreach."

While the government has not provided Boasberg with the details he has requested, CBS News has obtained an internal government list of the names of the Venezuelan men the Trump administration deported to El Salvador as part of the secretive operation on Saturday. The men were taken to a notorious Salvadoran prison.

In a sworn statement submitted to Boasberg on Thursday, an immigration attorney told the court that one of the deported men is a professional soccer player in Venezuela with no criminal history who was falsely linked to Tren de Aragua. The attorney argued that the man, Jerce Reyes Barrios, was accused of being connected to the gang in part because of a tattoo on his arm. The attorney said the tattoo was based on the logo for the Real Madrid football club.

Other court filings challenging the deportations allege troubling conditions during last weekend's flights and preparations. Plaintiffs' attorneys argued there was "chaos on the plane," "taunting" from officers, dangerous heat on board on tarmac, "crying and frightened" deportees and media prestaged to chronicle their arrival and departure.

One might expect that Bondi, as attorney general, could help calm the waters. But MSNBC and Yahoo! News, in an op-ed piece, say that has not happened. Under the headline "Pam Bondi’s attack on Judge James Boasberg is an attack on checks and balances," Anthony Coley writes:

President Donald Trump’s team is effective at using fiery rhetoric, which often includes lies, to paint his opponents as villains and to manufacture crises they insist only he can solve. Take the current fracas over the deportation of Venezuelan migrants whose alleged gang ties led Trump to declare them terrorists.

The debate reached fever pitch Wednesday, when Attorney General Pam Bondi, in an appearance on Fox News, launched an incendiary attack on so-called liberal U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of "meddling in our government." Bondi said, "And the question should be, why is the judge trying to protect terrorists who invaded our country over American citizens?”

Whoa, nelly. That’s quite the statement. Rather, it's empty rhetoric not supported by facts.

What’s especially pernicious is Bondi’s arrogant use of “our government” — as if the federal judiciary is not a co-equal branch of government. There’s an old-fashioned, but still appropriate idea that the public is best served when the Department of Justice speaks through its court filings. It’s also outrageous for Bondi to launch a verbal assault against a federal judge amidst an increased wave of violent threats. None of this is normal. 

But this is how Bondi rolls. In less than two months, the attorney general, who’s sworn to protect and defend all of us, has gained a reputation for just offering red meat to MAGA conservatives, whether lying about crime rates or mocking Hunter Biden at partisan political conferences or shattering norms by appearing exclusively on one conservative TV network every week of her tenure. She first proved herself in 2020, embracing Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen. She even travelled to Pennsylvania and made claims of “evidence of cheating” and “fake ballots” that didn’t exist.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Bondi the MAGA warrior would viciously attack Boasberg, a nonpartisan judge who was appointed to a seat on the D.C. Superior Court by Republican President George W. Bush. When President Barack Obama nominated him for a federal judgeship a decade later, the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed him.

Judge Boasberg is neither a knee-jerk liberal nor a died-in-the-wool conservative. He has issued rulings that Trump supported, such as when he ordered the FBI to release thousands of emails belonging to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and he has issued rulings that Trump opposed, such as clearing the way for former Vice President Mike Pence to provide grand jury testimony in DOJ’s investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. In law school, “this Democrat activist,” as White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrongly labeled him this week, roomed with now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who presided over his investiture.

Contrary to Bondi’s incendiary rhetoric that Judge Boasberg has “no right to ask those questions,” the truth is he has the right and is right to ask hard questions of the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. The law was last used following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II to relocate and incarcerate thousands of people of Japanese ancestry in the U.S. The Trump administration has provided no proof — to the court or anybody else — that the individuals detained and deported are in fact violent gang members in the country illegally. They’re telling the court and the public, but not showing us the proof, as MSNBC’s Ali Vitali observed.

It’s easy to understand why Judge Boasberg would have some questions, given the Trump administration’s “shoot first, ask questions later” sloppy approach to government. Like when they mistakenly declared a Seattle man dead and stopped his Social Security benefits; or abruptly fired (and then rehired) hundreds highly trained federal employees working on the nation’s nuclear weapons programs. Or inadvertently released Social Security numbers and other private information of former congressional staff. The list of things they should be questioned about is long.

But none of this matters to the Trump administration, which senses a political opening. And on the underlying question — the removal of any violent undocumented immigrant from the country — he has the support of most Americans, including Democrats. In fact, immigration/border security is the only major issue in which the majority of Americans approve of how Trump is handling it, according NBC News polling. Fifty-five percent of voters approve of his handling of the issue, while 43% disapprove. A clear majority, 56%, say he’s bringing the “right kind of change” on the issue.

But even policies that the American people approve of must be carried out according to the law, and, as Judge Boasberg is working to determine if applicable laws were followed, Trump and his administration are sowing discord for his political benefit.

Trumpers keep trampling the authority of Congress, and a U.S. judge finally calls them on it -- finding Musk team's attack on USAID was unconstitutional

(YouTube)

A federal judge says Elon Musk exceeded his authority in dismantling USAID and that shuttering the agency likely was unconstitutional. The case essentially comes down to a clash between two of the country's three branches of government, U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang found -- and in this instance, Musk and his DOGE team have encroached on another branch's territory. The wronged party, Chuang found, is the legislative branch, as the Trump administration continued its habit of attempting to usurp the power of Congress. This time, Chuang called them on it, as explained in a post at democracydocket.com: 

Billionaire Elon Musk overseeing the Trump administration’s attempted takeover of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) “likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways,” a federal judge in Maryland determined Tuesday.

Judge Theodore Chuang, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, ordered that Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could not take additional steps toward shutting down USAID and must restore USAID employees’ access to electronic systems.

Chuang rebuked Musk and DOGE for violating Congress’s constitutional authority to appropriate funds and create or shut down federal agencies. Specifically, the judge said they likely violated the Appointments Clause and the constitutional principle of Separation of Powers.

“These actions harmed not only Plaintiffs, but also the public interest, because they deprived the public’s elected representatives in Congress of their constitutional authority to decide whether, when, and how to close down an agency created by Congress,” the judge wrote.

He granted, in part, the preliminary injunction as part of a lawsuit challenging DOGE’s takeover of the agency brought by dozens of USAID employees being represented by State Democracy Defenders Action.

Will Trumpers ever get it through their skulls that they cannot assume authority lawfully granted to Congress. Judge Chaung seems to be doing his best to drive home that point.   

More details come from an article jointly published at CNN and Yahoo! News:

Billionaire Elon Musk appears to have overstepped his executive branch authority with his Department of Government Efficiency, a federal judge said Tuesday as he indefinitely blocked the dismantling of USAID.

“The court finds that Defendants’ unilateral actions to shut down USAID likely violated the United States Constitution,” said Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the US District Court in Maryland.

Chuang said that DOGE cannot terminate any more contracts or grants of USAID, nor can it fire or put on leave any more employees. He also cut off DOGE staffers from sharing sensitive personal data kept by the agency, in a major win for groups broadly challenging Musk’s role in the federal government.

A lawyer with a group that backs the lawsuit called the ruling a "milestone:

The ruling, placing a preliminary injunction on DOGE, is one of the first major rulings to limit Musk’s work in the federal government because of the US Constitution.

And it may chart the way other courts will look at Musk, as his efforts and the Trump administration are challenged for attempting to dismantle other government agencies and abruptly cut back federal spending.

“Today’s decision is an important victory against Elon Musk and his DOGE attack on USAID, the U.S.  government and the Constitution,” said Norm Eisen, executive chair of State Democracy Defenders Fund, which backs the lawsuit. “They are performing surgery with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel, harming not just the people USAID serves but the majority of Americans who count on the stability of our government. This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE’s illegality.”

The Trump administration, as has become its custom, attacked both the ruling and the judge who issued it:

The White House on Tuesday criticized the judge in response to the ruling. “Rogue judges are subverting the will of the American people in their attempts to stop President Trump from carrying out his agenda,” Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. “If these Judges want to force their partisan ideologies across the government, they should run for office themselves.”

How stupid is Kelly's comment? Federal judges do not run for office; they are nominated by presidents and must go before the U.S. Senate for confirmation, in proceedings that have become must-see TV since the infamous hearing for Clarence Thomas in 1991. That event introduced America to a porn star called "Long Dong Silver," plus the image of a Coke can with a public hair on it. No wonder no one wants to miss a Senate hearing for judges anymore.

It might be news to Kelly, but candidates for a federal judgeship usually go through an extensive FBI background check, something that is not likely to be foisted on political candidates. That's how we wind up with a hack like Donald Trump. Heck, "Long Dong Silver" probably is more qualified to be president than Trump.

Speaking of Trump, he was displeased with Judge Chuang's ruling in the USAID matter, and the president continued his pattern of ripping any judge who dares rule against him or his allies. From the CNN/Yahoo! report:

President Donald Trump blasted the judge’s decision later Tuesday, telling Fox News in an interview his administration plans to appeal the ruling.

“We’ll be appealing it, I guess – not I guess, I guarantee you, we will be appealing it,” Trump told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham. “We have rogue judges that are destroying our country.”

Chuang’s decision turns on Musk’s role at DOGE and Trump’s repeated public statements that the billionaire Tesla owner runs the office.

The judge outlined multiple times Trump and Musk said in public the tech entrepreneur was leading the DOGE efforts, despite the administration in court later arguing another government official was in charge and that Musk was a White House adviser and not an employee of DOGE.The times Trump acknowledged Musk led DOGE included, the judge noted: in press conferences, in an interview with TV host Sean Hannity, in a speech to corporate executives, at his first Cabinet meeting, and in his March 4 address to Congress. Chuang also described many of Musk’s posts on his social-media platform X that “suggest he has the ability to cause DOGE to act,” the judge wrote.

The shutdown of USAID – largely executed by members of Musk’s DOGE team – has been one of the most visible examples of the Trump administration cutting back the federal workforce to curtail spending.

Several other cases attempting to stop the dismantling of USAID haven’t been as successful as the case before Chuang on Tuesday, brought by USAID employees and contractors.

They said they lost access to electronic systems at the agency including for security assistance in high-risk areas abroad, and they haven’t received reimbursements the agency owes them, for things like travel and health insurance.

Chuang was responding to Musk’s role in permanently closing the USAID headquarters, taking down its website and terminating many of its contracts, grants and workers.

“Under the circumstances in the present record, where the DOGE Team Members have displayed an extremely troubling lack of respect for security clearance requirements and agency rules relating to access to sensitive data … the Court finds that the potential disclosure of sensitive personal information” could harm the unnamed plaintiffs, he said.

The judge did specify that he won’t stop DOGE from accessing personal data of employees at USAID, but they are not allowed to share it outside the agency and must reinstate systems that were shut down.

Trump calls Putin talk a "win," but Zelensky probably should not trust either man because they are planning a con to divide "certain assets" belonging to Ukraine

War's destruction in Ukraine (Vatican News)

 

U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russia counterpart Vladimir Putin connected via phone conference for three hours yesterday to discuss issues related to a possible peace agreement that would end Russia's war with neighboring Ukraine. Were the talks what they appear to be in news accounts? We see signs that the answer is no, likely because history tells us Trump and Putin are integrity-challenged "leaders" whose words and actions tend to involve ulterior motives and rarely can be trusted. What might their motives be this time? They likely involve a planned con on Ukraine, a pivotal party that did not participate in the talks. In fact, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky said he hopes soon to talk to Trump to learn details about the talks. What were those details? The Hill provides some answers under the headline "Putin backs limited 30-day ceasefire in call with Trump." Laura Kelly and Brett Samuels report:

President Trump spoke for nearly three hours with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday amid the U.S. push to secure Moscow’s agreement to a ceasefire in its war against Ukraine.

While the White House gave no indication in a readout of the meeting that there was a tangible agreement on a long-term ceasefire, there appeared to be consensus that any pause in fighting would begin with a halt in attacks on energy infrastructure.

Trump and Putin also discussed potential ceasefire agreements on matters of energy, infrastructure and maritime.

“The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace,” the White House said in a readout. “These negotiations will begin immediately in the Middle East.”

Trump has previously said he plans to visit Saudi Arabia to meet with Putin to further discuss the ceasefire, but the precise timing of that meeting is yet to be determined by the White House.

Russian state media reported that Trump proposed a 30-day pause on attacks on energy infrastructure, and that Putin “responded positively.”

Putin immediately gave the Russian military the corresponding command, the Kremlin said in a readout of the call, and committed to talks about halting fighting in the Black Sea. 

But among Putin’s demands in the call included “the need to stop” Ukraine from mobilizing troops and rearming its army. The Russian leader laid out demands that working toward a resolution of the war should include “complete cessation of foreign military aid and the provision of intelligence information to Kyiv.”

Putin told Trump that a prisoner exchange with Ukraine will be carried out Wednesday, with the transfer of 175 people on each side. The Kremlin said Russia will transfer 23 seriously wounded Ukrainian soldiers being treated in Russian hospitals. 

Trump and Putin also notably spoke “broadly about the Middle East as a region of potential cooperation to prevent future conflicts,” the White House said. And they discussed efforts to stop the spread of “strategic weapons”; Trump has previously spoken about a desire to end nuclear proliferation.

The White House readout of the call made no mention about territorial concessions, which had been a key point of contention ahead of peace talks. Ukraine’s backers have argued Kyiv should not have to relinquish its territory to Russia.

Does that account, and similar ones at other news outlets, address all issues surrounding the talks? The answer appears to be no. We can find no report that includes talk of the U.S. and Russia "dividing certain assets" that belong to Ukraine. Yet, that was a prominent part of press reports on  Tuesday (3/17/25). It does not appear in most, or all, reports on the talks yesterday (3/18/25). Why is that? Apparently none of the source material mentioned it, even though it was widely discussed in the press the day before the talks. How do we know? This is from an account at The New York Times under the headline "Trump Says He Will Discuss Ukraine’s Land and Power Plants in Call With Putin on Tuesday; President Trump said negotiations over a U.S.-backed cease-fire proposal had continued over the weekend and that discussions had included “dividing up certain assets”:

President Trump said he would speak with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Tuesday about the war in Ukraine, noting that there had already been discussions about “dividing up certain assets” as the president continued to express some optimism that Moscow would agree to a cease-fire proposal.

“We want to see if we can bring that war to an end,” Mr. Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday evening. “Maybe we can. Maybe we can’t, but I think we have a very good chance.”

Mr. Trump said that progress on negotiations had been made over the weekend, and there have been ongoing conversations about concessions over land and power plants.

“I think we’ll be talking about land, it’s a lot of land. It’s a lot different than it was before the war, as you know,” Mr. Trump said.

Are Trump and Putin planning to essentially steal Ukraine's land -- and perhaps other assets? That's how it sounds. How would Zelensky react to such a plan? Probably not well. No wonder he was not involved in the talks. This is from an account at CNN under the headline "Trump says Ukraine-Russia peace talks looking at ‘dividing up certain assets’": 

Negotiators working to end the Russia-Ukraine war have already discussed “dividing up certain assets,” US President Donald Trump said Sunday as he announced he planned to speak to Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Tuesday. . . . 

Land concessions are among the most sensitive issues left to hammer out. American officials have said Ukraine will likely need to cede territory for the war to end, and Putin has made it a condition of entering into a ceasefire.

But conceding territory has long been a nonstarter for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and some European leaders have voiced concern about appearing to reward Putin for launching his invasion. Russia has also made clear it has no desire to give up the swathes of Ukrainian territory it has occupied. . . .

Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff told CNN on Sunday that the ongoing talks over Ukraine were productive, but didn’t say how the matter of territorial concessions would be resolved.

This is from a joint report at Bloomberg/Yahoo!News under the headline "Putin Spurns a Ukraine Ceasefire But Trump Calls Talk a Win":

President Donald Trump said the US and Russia are already talking about dividing “assets” as part of a push to end the fighting in Ukraine, the latest sign that he may be preparing to sacrifice Kyiv’s interests when he speaks with Vladimir Putin on Tuesday. . . . 

Even the faint progress on Tuesday for Trump’s high-profile but controversial ceasefire proposal could be enough to silence some criticism that he’s selling out the Ukrainians. It may even constitute a political win at a time when some analysts feared Trump might formally recognize Russia’s sovereignty over Ukraine’s Crimea region or make some other concession.

“I was expecting the worst,” retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of US Army Europe, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. “The fact we did not hear those is better than if we had. But we have to be very clear — I think Vladimir Putin has zero interest in any true long-term settlement as long as he remains in power, and his objective still remains the destruction of Ukraine.”

What does Zelensky make of all this talk about his country? It's hard to tell because he's been kept in the dark? From a report at The Hill under the headline "Zelensky eager for details on Trump-Putin talk":

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday called for more details in President Trump’s proposal for a ceasefire with Russia that would spare energy and infrastructure targets, warning that Russian President Vladimir Putin is pressuring Ukraine in ground operations. 

Zelensky made his remarks in a press conference organized shortly after Trump held a phone call with Putin to discuss the terms of a potential ceasefire. Putin held back committing to a U.S.-pitched ceasefire that Ukraine accepted last week and that would halt ground and air attacks. 

“We support all steps aimed at the end of the war. We will support them. But in order to support them, we need to understand what exactly we support,” Zelensky said in remarks in Ukrainian and shared by Reuters. 

“When President Trump has time, he is a busy man, when he has time, he can call me any time; he has my phone number. We are ready to talk through further steps, with pleasure.”

The White House did not return a request for comment by The Hill on whether Trump has plans to call Zelensky.

The Ukrainian leader said a prisoner exchange set for Wednesday will demonstrate a will and desire to end the war, on the part of Russia. But he said Kyiv is skeptical in trusting the Russians, saying there is no trust in Putin to hold to a truce. 

“That’s why I am saying we need to understand how it will work technically so that it will not depend on their desire only. That is it,” Zelensky said. 

Zelensky said Putin is intent on conducting offensive operations in key areas of Ukrainian territory, which Moscow claims it annexed but does not have full control. This includes the Ukrainian oblasts of Zaporizhia, the site of a critical nuclear power plant, and the areas of Sumy and Kharkiv in the northeast of the country, on the border with Russia. 

“Putin wants to conduct a few offensive operations,” Zelensky said. “He will try to do it. For what? To put maximum amount of pressure on Ukraine. When will it happen? Trust me, he will try to do it in the nearest few months.”

Zelensky also spoke out about demands Putin raised in the call with Trump, that any ceasefire would require Ukraine to halt recruiting new soldiers and stop rearmament. Zelensky also rejected Putin’s calls for the U.S. to end military assistance for Ukraine. 

Trump briefly halted U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing but restored it when Zelensky agreed to a 30-day ceasefire. 

“[Putin] saw that the United States can take steps [to stop military aid and intelligence sharing] and that is why he is raising topics which he thinks may work in his favor. It happened before, so why not to do it again. But once again, it means weakening of the Ukrainian army,” Zelensky said. 

“I think military aid will continue. We have aid from both the United States and our European colleagues. We are constantly in touch with them. I am certain there will be no betrayal from the partners’ side and that the flow of military aid will continue.”

Scott Horton, a lawyer with an eye for news -- who produced keen reporting on the Don Siegelman case -- exposes Elon Musk's ties to Putin; Horton's insights on my UAB termination speak to attacks on a free press

(VOA)

The FBI for years tracked Elon Musk's interactions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but the bureau kept what they learned from the public, ensuring voters would know nothing about it when they went to the polls last November 5 and gave Donald Trump a victory over Democrat Kamala Harris, including wins in seven swing states. Despite spending almost all of his professional life on the East Coast, Trump even won the western states of Arizona and Nevada, right next door to Harris' home state of California. It was a stunning performance that almost certainly would not have happened without the assistance of Musk, who endorsed Trump in July 2024, shortly after an alleged assassination attempt of the candidate in Butler, PA. 

Robert Scott Horton, who long has been one of our most articulate voices on matters of justice in the United States and beyond, writes at his Facebook page that Americans had a vested interest in knowing about Musk's connections to Putin because the billionaire -- reportedly worth $335.2 billion (per Forbes) and long touted as the world's richest person -- has made a habit of parroting Kremlin talking points, Horton writes:

As we will shortly learn, for years the FBI tracked Elon Musk's nefarious dealings with Vladimir Putin and his agents and decided to do nothing whatsoever about it. Indeed, they decided to keep what they learned secret, so that American voters knew nothing about it when they went to the polls in 2024. "For years, he has increasingly regurgitated Kremlin talking points, especially regarding Ukraine. In late 2022, with Russian troops starting to be pushed out of much of eastern Ukraine, Musk began broadcasting Kremlin talking points to halt Ukrainian advances. He started peddling Russian propaganda claims that Ukrainian territories like Crimea are “absolutely seen as a core part of Russia by Russia”—and that Russia would resort to nuclear war if Crimea was threatened by Kyiv. He further peddled a supposed “peace plan” that would not only return Ukraine to neutrality—the same neutrality Ukraine enjoyed when Russia first invaded in 2014—but further force Ukraine to give up its claims to Crimea.

Does Horton know what he's talking about? He's had a long and distinguished career in law, journalism, and academia, with an emphasis on human rights. In Alabama he is well known for his extensive reporting on the political prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman during the George W. Bush administration. (Also see The Pork Barrel World of Judge Mark Fuller, Judge Fuller: A Siegelman Grudge Match? and 2003 Affidavit Raises More Serious Questions About Siegelman Judge.)

Horton earned his J.D. at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin. He worked at two New York-based law firms (Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, along with DLA Piper in London). He was a lecturer at Columbia University and a contributing editor at Harper's Magazine.

I should note that I have first-hand experience with how Scott Horton handles a sensitive story. On Dec. 31, 2008, he reported at Harper's about my unlawful termination at UAB (For more details on what happened to me at UAB, please see this link, and this link.) Under the headline "The Argus-Eyed University," Horton wrote about my dreadful experience in the workplace with professionalism and care.

While some official types at UAB probably did not care for the story, Horton was fair to everyone involved. The following paragraphs are examples of how Horton approached his work:

We could hardly end 2008 without delivering a George Orwell Honorable Mention to the University of Alabama at Birmingham for its truly extraordinary “acceptable use” policy on employee Internet use. There’s nothing strange about the language of the policy–in fact it’s pedestrian (the Internet “may not be used for any activity which is destructive, disruptive, or illegal” it says). But how the university interprets and applies this prohibition might surprise an observer–unless, of course, the observer is attuned to the peculiarities of Alabama politics.

Case in point: The university recently fired Roger Shuler, a long-time public relations employee who blogs on legal developments under the moniker “the Legal Schnauzer,” apparently expressing concern in a grievance hearing over the fact that he regularly visited and read Harper’s. After The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the firing, the university posted a credibility-straining assertion that the firing was “based solely on work performance.” Also according to the Chronicle:

The university told The Raw Story that Mr. Shuler had not been fired for blogging, but it would not comment further. In June an appeals committee at the university voted to overturn Mr. Shuler’s dismissal. But he says the university recently told him that, while he could be rehired, he would not get his former job back.

Shuler says the decision to fire him was based on the political content of his blog posts, which were critical of Alabama Governor Bob Riley and one of his key allies, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. According to Shuler, the firing occurred only a few months after one of Riley’s political cronies threatened him with the loss of his job because of his blogging. Indeed, to the university’s chagrin, his final review session was taped, and portions which have now been published suggest that the primary concern of his reviewers was that he was publicly critical of the state’s political powers.

That is spot-on accurate and fair to everyone involved. If some folks at UAB didn't like it, well, that's because they were lying when they said I was fired because of my work performance. Anita Bonasera, the university's own HR specialist, admitted to me -- in a phone conversation I recorded -- that I was fired because of my blog, especially my reporting on the Siegelman case. You can read the relevant parts of the transcript and view a video that features audio of the Bonasera phone call at this link. Horton portrayed UAB's spokespeople as liars, and that is exactly what they are.

My main point: Scott Horton is a bright, talented guy and a world-class journalist and lawyer. When he writes about Elon Musk -- probably the most controversial person on the planet right now -- the public would be wise to pay attention. Horton states in clear, straightforward language that Musk is a deceptive individual, particularly when it comes to the interests of Vladimir Putin:

In late 2022, with Russian troops starting to be pushed out of much of eastern Ukraine, Musk began broadcasting Kremlin talking points to halt Ukrainian advances. He started peddling Russian propaganda claims that Ukrainian territories like Crimea are “absolutely seen as a core part of Russia by Russia”—and that Russia would resort to nuclear war if Crimea was threatened by Kyiv. He further peddled a supposed “peace plan” that would not only return Ukraine to neutrality—the same neutrality Ukraine enjoyed when Russia first invaded in 2014—but further force Ukraine to give up its claims to Crimea.

All of it added up to a sudden pro-Kremlin shift in Musk’s public rhetoric—and a complete shift away from the backing for Ukraine he’d initially exhibited. For those familiar with the region and Russian politics, Musk’s additional calls to have Ukrainian water flow to the peninsula, while also dubbing Ukraine’s claims to Crimea as “Khruschev’s mistake,” were immediate red flags, directly parroting Kremlin rhetoric. “It’s very clear that Elon Musk is transmitting a message for Putin,” Russia expert Fiona Hill said at the time. Soon thereafter, we learned that Musk had specifically blocked a Ukrainian military mission from targeting the peninsula, with Musk waffling in the face of Russian nuclear threats—arguably the only time Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling has actually worked.

 

Now we know how, and why, Musk suddenly lurched toward supporting Putin—and why he’s continued down that path since. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Musk has spoken multiple times, including this year, with high-level Russian officials—including Putin. In addition to pushing the kinds of talking points Musk then regurgitated, the Kremlin further encouraged Musk to block his Starlink satellites from operating over Taiwan, “as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping.”

 

Trump administration appears to shrug off court orders involving deportations to El Salvador and Venezuela, setting the stage for a clash with U.S. judges

 

Prison guards prepare deportees for transfer to a confinement center in El Salvador (AP)

 

The Trump administration over the weekend appeared to ignore a federal judge's order that it cease using an obscure 1798 law to deport migrants first to El Salvador and then Venezuela. The actions in the case, which remain unclear in some regards, could set the Trump presidency on a collision course with the federal judiciary in what some have feared would spark a constitutional crisis, according to a report at The New York Times (NYT). Under the headline "With Deportations, Trump Steps Closer to Showdown With Judicial Branch, Mattathias Schwartz writes:

The Trump administration moved one large step closer to a constitutional showdown with the judicial branch of government when airplane loads of Venezuelan detainees deplaned in El Salvador even though a federal judge had ordered that the planes reverse course and return the detainees to the United States.

The right-wing president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, bragged that the 238 detainees who had been aboard the aircraft were transferred to a Salvadoran “Terrorism Confinement Center,” where they would be held for at least a year.

“Oopsie … Too late,” Mr. Bukele wrote in a social media post on Sunday morning that was recirculated by the White House communications director, Steven Cheung.

Around the same time, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in another social media post, thanked Mr. Bukele for a lengthy post detailing the migrants’ incarceration.

“This sure looks like contempt of court to me,” said David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University. “You can turn around a plane if you want to.”

As to a lack of clarity surrounding the matter, much of it is driven by uncertainty about the times certain events took place. Schwartz explains:

Some details of the government’s actions remained unclear, including the exact time the planes landed. In a Sunday afternoon filing, the Trump administration said the State Department and Homeland Security Department were “promptly notified” of the judge’s written order when it was posted to the electronic docket at 7:26 p.m. Eastern time on Saturday. The filing implied that the government had a different legal authority for deporting the Venezuelans besides the one blocked by the judge, which could provide a basis for them to remain in El Salvador while the order is appealed.

The administration said the five plaintiffs who filed suit to block their deportations — the suit that yielded the judge’s order — had not been deported.

On Sunday, legal analysts were still stitching together the timeline, trying to determine where the planes were shortly before 7 p.m. Eastern time on Saturday — and how close the Trump administration was to open defiance of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances.

That was when Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Trump administration to cease its use of an obscure wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, as a pretext for the expulsion of migrants, and immediately return anyone it was expelling under the act to the United States.

Regardless of the timing, Judge Boasberg’s order appeared to have been brushed aside by the Trump administration, which went ahead and turned the Venezuelans over to the government of El Salvador for detention. In touting the event, Mr. Rubio made no mention of Judge Boasberg’s order. On Saturday, the judge had ordered the government to return anyone removed under the Alien Enemies Act to U.S. soil, “however that’s accomplished — whether turning around the plane or not.”

The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, issued a statement on Sunday denying that the administration had refused to comply with the order, and questioning the judge’s authority to issue it. She said Boasberg had no "jurisdiction" to issue the order, and it had "no lawful basis." Leavitt did not cite any law to support those claims.

In a 25-page appellate filing on Sunday, Justice Department lawyers called the order by Judge Boasberg, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a “massive, unauthorized imposition on the Executive’s authority.” Mr. Trump’s actions, they argued, “are not subject to judicial review” because of what they said was the presidency’s inherent constitutional authority over national security and foreign policy matters, and that the federal courts as a whole lacked jurisdiction over his exercise of a “war power.”

This is the latest chapter in a clash driven mainly by Trump's tendency to issue executive orders of dubious merit, including many that appeared to involve no legal research before they were written and signed. Schwartz reports:

Federal judges have been clashing with the Trump administration for weeks over dozens of executive actions that the courts have tried to put on temporary hold while their legality is assessed. In some cases, plaintiffs who sued the administration and obtained favorable judicial orders have returned to court saying the administration was failing to comply with them.

On Friday, a kidney transplant specialist and professor at Brown University’s medical school was deported from the United States, even though a court had ordered her expulsion temporarily blocked, according to her attorney and federal court documents.

But the mockery by Mr. Bukele — and the tacit endorsements of it by senior administration officials — seemed to push Washington closer to a constitutional crisis, critics of the administration said Sunday.

“Court order defied,” wrote Mark S. Zaid, a Washington lawyer whose legal fights with the administration have put him in Mr. Trump’s cross hairs. In a social media post, Mr. Zaid said the events on Saturday and Sunday were the “start of true constitutional crisis.”

Other experts were concerned but more cautious.

“We need a little more development of the facts,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “If the report is true about timing, then it does seem like the administration has ignored a binding court order. And if that’s the case, then the courts must act swiftly to punish the Trump administration. We cannot have the executive branch ignoring the orders of the judicial branch.”

On Saturday, the Trump administration claimed authority under the Alien Enemies Act to immediately deport any Venezuelan citizen age 14 or older who the administration says is a member of Tren de Aragua, a violent criminal gang that was designated a foreign terrorist organization in February. In its proclamation on Saturday, the White House called the gang a “hybrid criminal state” that was “perpetrating an invasion” of the United States, justifying use of the 1798 law, which had only been invoked three times before — for the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.

Earlier in the day, anticipating that step, five Venezuelans in federal custody filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that their expulsion on that basis would violate federal law and the Constitution’s guarantee to due process. Judge Boasberg soon issued a restraining order blocking their removal.

Then, in a hearing on Saturday afternoon, lawyers for the plaintiffs told the judge that two planes carrying other Venezuelans expelled under the Alien Enemies Act were “in the air.” From the bench, shortly before 7 p.m., Judge Boasberg ordered the government to turn the planes around and bring the detainees back. Then he issued a second written order barring the government from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport any suspected members of Tren De Aragua.

This is not the first time the Trump administration has appeared to violate a court order. In fact, it's almost becoming a habit, Schwartz writes:

The flights to El Salvador marked the second time in quick succession that the administration has been accused of deporting someone in violation of a court order. Lawyers for Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a physician specializing in kidney transplant patients and a professor at Brown University’s medical school, said she was deported on Friday despite a court order to the contrary from Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts. On Sunday, Judge Sorokin gave the government a Monday deadline to respond to charges that it had “willfully disobeyed” his order.

Skye Perryman, chief executive of Democracy Forward, which has helped bring a multitude of lawsuits against the Trump administration, said she still expects the government to comply with court orders.

“We will continue to work through the courts to ensure that orders are faithfully executed and — if not — that there is accountability for the government,” she said in a statement on Sunday.

White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said on Friday that court orders blocking Mr. Trump’s agenda were “unconstitutional and unfair.” That added to speculation, prompted by statements made by Mr. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance on social media, that the White House might openly defy the judiciary, which under the Constitution is a branch of government equal in authority to the executive.

Mr. Super, the Georgetown law professor, said the Justice Department’s arguments for deference to the president’s sole power to conduct foreign policy may be weighed by an appeals court when it considers whether to uphold Judge Boasberg’s order, but they do not provide a justification for violating the order.

“You have to comply with court orders until they’re reversed,” he said. “Otherwise, you and I become our own courts. We follow what we think is right, we violate what we think is wrong, and the judges may as well go home.”