I thought this could go either way, and the 5-4 vote shows it might have.
Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Pause on Foreign-Aid Payouts
The Wall Street Journal reports Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Pause on Foreign-Aid Payouts
A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to pause foreign-aid funding, refusing to suspend a lower court order that required the government to pay contractors nearly $2 billion for work they already have performed.
Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts briefly paused a deadline for the government to make the payments. The order Wednesday, which came on a 5-4 vote, removed that hold. The court’s majority, however, instructed the federal trial judge overseeing the case to consider “the feasibility of any compliance timelines,” apparently in response to the government’s argument that an earlier deadline was too difficult to meet.
The court’s unsigned order was one of its first actions over Trump’s aggressive effort to remake the federal government. More than 100 lawsuits have been filed by states, individuals and private organizations claiming that the administration is breaking the law and harming their rights.
It also suggested deep divisions within the court over Trump’s unilateral actions. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in the majority. The four most conservative justices said the administration’s request should have been granted.
Does a single federal judge “have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. He added: “I am stunned.”
The ruling came after U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington, D.C., last month issued a temporary restraining order that blocked the government from canceling all aid contracts while legal proceedings continued, finding the categorical spending freeze was likely unlawful.
During its first few weeks, the Trump administration largely dismantled the work of the 10,000-person U.S. Agency for International Development and the thousands of people in nonprofits and other groups that work with it. Its headquarters was closed, its name taken off the building, and most of its staff put on paid leave. Employees stationed overseas were ordered to come home within a month.
Several lawsuits have challenged the administration’s actions.
The case at issue was brought by groups providing AIDS relief and other services. They challenged the administration’s decision to suspend distribution of aid that had already been approved by Congress.
The aid recipients complained that the administration continued to revoke contracts and block payments even after the order. Judge Ali declined to hold the government in contempt but on Feb. 25 issued an order that required the $2 billion be paid by midnight the next day. Additional proceedings are pending before Ali in the district court.
Cancellation or Timing?
The Supreme Court’s Wednesday order was brief, but it stressed that the case was still in preliminary stages and that the government wasn’t contesting the order by Judge Ali to pay the contractors, only the timeline he set for doing so.
So, team Trump is no longer even arguing USAID would be shut down. Fancy that after Musk’s hype about shutting it down.
Rather, Trump now just wants to approve the timeline at which payments go out, but it wants too long to decide.
This gets back to a point I made in the beginning.
USAID Cancellation by Trump, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Details
On February 6, I commented USAID Cancellation by Trump, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Details
The Good
Rooting out fraud and ridiculous unauthorized payments is good. Moreover, there is grounds to fire everyone who sent out checks without questioning a single one.
The Bad
Sorry DOGE, but a blanket cancellation of all payments is unconstitutional.
The Ugly
Elon Musk has no power to do anything but advise the President and make recommendations.
Also in the ugly category is the simple fact that many if not most of the payments are legitimate. By legitimate, I mean genuinely authorized by Congress, not that I think they are a good idea.
The Right Approach
What Trump should have done is allow Musk to search for questionable items and report them.
That part happened, but in an ugly way.
Then Trump could legitimately block those items. Also he could have directed USAID to look at and question every expense, flagging and temporarily those that are questionable.
Instead, Trump blocked everything except for “critical items” whatever that means.
The Unfortunate Reality
There is no advantage in releasing Musk in a China shop than releasing George Soros in the same China shop. No good will come from a reckless smashing of plates.
And the unfortunate impact might very well be the courts block everything when some very good things may have happened if Trump took a legitimate case-by-case look.
Lawsuits are pending and Trump will lose. We should not be in this setup.
Also recall, Elon Musk says he and Trump are shutting down USAID
Musk, the head of Trump’s government efficiency initiative, announced the shutdown in the middle of the night in an audio-only appearance on his social media site X.
But Musk has no power to shut down anything.
No one should defend this because the only legitimate role of DOGE is to make recommendations.
My Warning Then Is Now Reality
As I said on February 6, “The unfortunate impact might very well be the courts block everything when some very good things may have happened if Trump took a legitimate case-by-case look.“
That this quite conservative court overruled Trump on timing does not bode well for Trump’s more ridiculous actions such as ending birthright citizenship.
As I also said on February 6, “We should not be in this setup.”
Expect many more losses in Court, but some victories too. Most of the big cases will be Trump losses.
This court smackdown is a good thing. I don’t want Trump running roughshod over the Constitution any more than I did Biden. Hypocrites, of course, don’t see it that way.
Perhaps the resolution to this is a 30-day hold instead of 90. I am fine with reasonable actions and we would not be here with reasonable actions. Unfortunately, this could easily turn into a total loss.
However, I do expect Trump to salvage something, eventually, but less than he taken a more reasonable approach.
Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
I have discussed Trump’s ridiculous executive order ending birthright citizenship many times.
My most recent synopsis was February 20, 2025 in Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
Trump’s case on birthright citizenship is so weak that the Supreme Court might not even take it.
Addendum
Email Exchange With Constitutional Expert Friend (CEF) on USAID
CEF: Remember, this is not a final ruling. The case came up on an appeal from a TRO, so the question is whether the Government must continue to pay while the parties litigate the question whether the President has authority to stop payments.
The majority wrote a very brief opinion, per curiam (no one designated as author) and did not really discuss the issues. It’s three paragraphs and pretty much says that the Government did not carry its burden on the application.
Me: But Trump did not even try to claim they can cancel all aid. That was the position of Trump and Musk in the beginning. If they cannot win on this point, how are they going to win on cancellation?
CEF: Today’s win was procedural. I.e., the standards for injunctive relief were met and pending a final decision, payments can continue. But one of the standards for an injunction is that the party seeking the injunction is LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS. Five members so the Court apparently have decided that the applicants are likely to succeed, so that means they are likely to make Trump a loser. If you can’t prevent the distribution of Congressionally approved funds, you certainly can’t shut down an agency that Congress has mandated, if that’s what you mean by cancellation.
Me: “If you can’t prevent the distribution of Congressionally approved funds, you certainly can’t shut down an agency that Congress has mandated, if that’s what you mean by cancellation.” Yes, exactly what I mean.
CEF: All Trump has to do is go to the Republican-controlled Congress and get it to repeal the USAID statute. A President can’t do that. Or at least not assuming we’re still living in a country governed by the US Constitution.
CEF graduated top of Harvard Law Review and has argued many cases before the Supreme court.
Completed contract reference number?
If one had any doubts Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Amy Coney Barrett were compromised.
Your lack of legal acumen is astounding. While the hope was for review, the goal was to at least get a delay. TROs are not appealable. Injunctions are. When a preliminary injunction is issued, the TRO is automatically dissolved. The hearing for the preliminary injunction is tomorrow. This will go back to the lower court who was ordered to “clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.” Do you think the district court can do that before tomorrow? No. So the case will move forward with the preliminary injunction hearing instead of the TRO and when the injunction issues it will be immediately stayed because it is appealable.
Your lack of clear thinking is astounding.
So fing what?
The court ruled 5-4 on the delay of distribution of funds.
They decided trump would fail on merit
It might behoove you to think that If you can’t prevent the distribution of Congressionally approved funds, you certainly can’t shut down an entire agency that Congress has mandated.
That was the goal when Musk bragged that he shut down USAID.
And if you bothered to read my post, you would realize I am fine with delays – not stoppages of everything for review.
I would be quite happy if the court allows reasonable delays, say up to 30 days, to review questionable cases.
To repeat “Perhaps the resolution to this is a 30-day hold instead of 90. I am fine with reasonable actions and we would not be here with reasonable actions. Unfortunately, this could easily turn into a total loss.”
You still don’t get it. The supreme court didn’t decide the issue it only postponed review. The district court ordered the government to pay, but did it in a TRO so it couldn’t get reviewed by any appellate court. He effectively entered a mandatory injunction without calling it that. No one can appeal a TRO under established rules. When a PI is entered in this case it is appealable and it will be reversed. First, the plaintiffs don’t have standing to assert all funds must be paid. Second, the district court doesn’t have jurisdiction over breach of contract claims against the government. We know the Supreme Court will hear the case because there was four dissenters and only four votes are needed for a grant of a petition for review. It will be reversed
Thanks for the article, Mish.
It’s likely better than it looks. SCOTUS dissent shows what is lacking in the circuit court process and decision while the decision demands of the circuit court that greater care be taken.
So: a shot across the bow regarding Article II powers and the defective process, as the four dissenting justices made clear.
However, the upcoming decision of the lower court can be appealed (the door is left open; note the comments by Turley)… the govt only asked for a stay in consideration of the short time frame for payment, not a decision on any other merits.
The SCOTUS decision may force the lower court to do the job more properly (the case likely should have been brought to Federal Claims Court, by law).
Keep in mind the boilerplate language on many contracted funds says that the US can unilaterally halt payment. That may apply. In addition, it almost goes without saying, that fraud is actionable by Presidential authority even for “unpaid balances” as the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” …
but I don’t pretend to know what the govt will argue.
You can read the SCOTUS decision (first page) and the dissent (subsequent pages) here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf
And a take on the process is here: https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1897329816053146054
Turley also has a brief take: https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1897336763255009348
and more: https://jonathanturley.org/2025/03/05/down-but-not-out-supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-the-administration-over-hold-on-2-billion-in-usaid-funds/
A conversation with my Attorney Friend after I sent my post.
AF: Remember, this is not a final ruling. The case came up on an appeal from a TRO, so the question is whether the Government must continue to pay while the parties litigate the question whether the President has authority to stop payments. This was a procedural decision, so pretty easy for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to support Trump. They can essentially support him without taking a position on the ultimate issue. Unclear what will happen when the merits come up for consideration. While there was no explanation of the denial of the application, the five who voted to deny the application was likely to succeed on the merits, one of the four tests for approving an injunction. I speculate that Roberts wanted to avoid getting into a fight with Kavanaugh at this point. Better to save his ammo for when the case comes up for real. Also, Gorsuch may vote with the majority if the words of the statute are pretty clear.
This also suggests that we will see a similar line-up approach in future “un-freezing” appeals.
Me: I was aware that this was preliminary. But if they cannot win on this point, how are they going to win on cancellation? I am fully OK with a review of aid, but not for 90 days.
AF: Today’s win was procedural. I.e., the standards for injunctive relief were met and pending a final decision, payments can continue. When the court actually addresses the issue of whether Trump can stop payments, they can decide in his favor. But one of the standards for an injunction is that the party seeking the injunction is LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS. Five members so the Court apparently have decided that the applicants are likely to succeed, so that means they are likely to make Trump a loser. If you can’t prevent the distribution of Congressionally approved funds, you certainly can’t shut down an agency that Congress has mandated, if that’s what you mean by cancellation. The way you get rid of Congressionally mandated programs is that you change the law.
Me: “If you can’t prevent the distribution of Congressionally approved funds, you certainly can’t shut down an agency that Congress has mandated, if that’s what you mean by cancellation. “
Yes, exactly what I mean.
That is how I tried to word my post…
Perhaps the resolution to this is a 30-day hold instead of 90. I am fine with reasonable actions and we would not be here with reasonable actions. Unfortunately, this could easily turn into a total loss.
However, I do expect Trump to salvage something, eventually, but less than he taken a more reasonable approach.
I gave myself an out, but not a complete reversal.
A 30-day hold actually seems quite fair on questionable items.
Given the extraordinary overstepping of the circuit courts in many of these cases, it is looking more and more like the hammer approach was correct.
In my view, the concerns about Trump should center more along the lines of non-legal issues (at least, so far): such as a “sovereign wealth fund” that invests in crypto (personally, I believe in hard money like gold, not “crypto” where no one at all can know whether it is feasible long-term, and crypto is not physical, meaning it has a potentially permanent defect).
Trump has (perhaps by necessity) surrounded himself with a technocratic elite (with bizarre beliefs about humanism and control) that possesses nearly undreamed-of powers of surveillance and control. That concern translates to the near centralization of “free speech” under X — I am not bashing Musk, I just have no trust of any human to this extent.
Why tech influence isn’t more a focus, I don’t understand. There will be other risks we don’t foresee of course, but this is right there.
For work that is already done, the US must be responsible for payment according to the contract, regardless of DOGE. The ability to cancel other work etc, not done/completed, will also depend on the contract. If the US can show fraud etc, then the US brings claims for recovery.
That is the rule of law. IT applies to government as well as non-government.
A better question is what claims do we the People have on an incompetent president, and a party that refused to remove him from office. You got EXACTLY what you voted for.
Having had the misfortune to have been a govt contractor for 20 years, I can tell you a govt contract isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Three times I (and many others) lost their jobs on two hour’s notice because the govt cancelled the contract without warning. We were even doing good work on worthwhile projects…..
You would think the govt would be obligated to pay for work already done but I’m not sure if it’s legally obligated to do so. It certainly is not legally obligated to honor a contract for future work, that’s for sure.
As I said, it depends on the contract. If the contract contains language to the effect that the government can cancel a contract without prior notice or justification, don’t sign it. .
It seems that the court ruling only applied to past due money, i.e. compensation for work already performed. It does not seem to apply to any future spending.
That little detail was left out by a lot of the media.
Sounds reasonable to me, as well. US-AID contractors have the legal right to get consideration for their services, no matter how odious we might think those services are (color revolutions, sending rainbow colored condoms to Africa.) But the executive branch has the right to cancel or stop further funding, depending on the terms of the contract (all contracts typically have a term for cancellation.)
If I were President Trump, I’d write a letter to the Supreme Court and say, “send your army to enforce your decision assholes!” And then cut the budget of the Supreme Court, or impeach each of the members of the Court or have all the members of the Court arrested! Nothing should stop the gutting of the deep state, nothing.
Yeah F the Constitution!
Hi, have you heard of the Constitution? Well, in it, The SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of government, specifically created to check the powers of the president
By the way, there’s a name for an executive who uses military might to get what he wants domestically.
The so-called deep state is simply what the government needs in order to do anything. Career employees who built up expertise. if they all changed every 4 to 8 years you’d never have anyone with more than 4 or 8 years of experience.
Yeah, no. They have to pay the $2billion because services have already been rendered. It says nothing about all future payments. Barrett is deep stater at heart which is weird because she clerked for Scalia.
How come Vances tie was so short? Has he no fashion sense? He clearly was in violation of Trump’s fashion lead that a tie length must reach your crotch!
Why was JOhnson wearing a red/blue striped tie? Was that an attempt to appear bipartisan?
And I noticed that Musk wore a BLUE tie, the Dem’s color. Was this a statement as to his supposed “independence” from Trump and the Republicans?
This is not a conservative court
You have 3 conservatives and 5 liberals and one flip flopper
Roberts is incompetent and not a conservative. Barrett is not a conservative. Both of those sided with evil liberals to continue government censorship by incredibly shirking their duty and sending Murthy back to the lower court on standing grounds.
Ridiculous
Kavanaugh is the flip flopper
USAID should be shut down completely. And if Trump ignores the Supreme Court I would actually support it at this point
In any case all they ruled on was 2 Billion out of 50 billion for work already done. That is a contractual issue not a constitutional one
“Elon Musk has no power to do anything but advise the President and make recommendations.”
Musk is the actual president when it comes to what DOGE does. That’s what $270 million in campaign donations buys you.
Musk is putting 85% of all payload into orbit. That’s around the world. Does that make him Galactic Emperor?
What if Musk has loaded nuke missiles in his satellites? He might be setting up to take over the planet!
I say go for it.
Your critical thinking skills amaze me.
The court of public opinion matters more nowadays.
Trump will say whatever he wants and the MAGA cultists will believe.
His lawyers lost 61 out of 62 court cases regarding the 2020 election…
but the BIG LIE persists to this day.
You actually believe that? You must get your news from the MSNBC part of the CIA media network
They lost 3 of 68 cases on the merits
They won 5 of 68 cases, most of which were inconsequential
60 of 68 were lost on procedural grounds like laches and standing and time limits and so on
Educate yourself. And stop watching ALL corporate media
So, not counting inconsequential wins…
they lost ALL of their cases.
I stand corrected.
“They lost 3 of 68 cases on the merits”.
Because what he was asking for was completely bonkers and could not be granted. He wanted contested states to throw out ALL the votes. he didn’t say do recounts and throw out the bad ones (because that was done 4-5X in contested states and nothing changed). He wanted to throw out the votes of ALL Pennsylvanians, even the ones that were unequivocally, 100% valid votes and even the ones cast for him. And all of the specific claims were debunked, or completely idiotic like “the voter signed next t the line, not above it” type idiocy.
And RussiaGate never existed. Covid began in the wet market. Biden did not have dementia. Hunter is innocent of fraud…
And to think the US might’ve had Harris in the White House..
The good news is that we have 4 more years of the Republicans and Democrats going at it like never before.
Gives us Independents and the future generations some hope.
I pray both parties implode.
I’d say the role of DOGE is to name names. Point out who has gamed USAID. Clintons? Bushs? Post their names and the lengths they went to steal tax dollars and cover their tracks. Out them all. DoJ can sort through who will be prosecuted, but at least let voters know who the thieves are and bring receipts.
The US and its little buddy (the UK) are the largest overseas development providers. The UK just mothballed its effort in order to increase defence spending. There is a real danger that with the US and UK gone that China and Russia step in. It takes a long time to get countries back on side. While the US may be less interested in the international rules based order at the moment it would be short sighted to lose all of that soft power.
So yes agree totally with the comments above but radical reform, not remove.
The U.S. does extremely little overseas development. It’s mostly giving money to NGO’s for regime change operations and bribing foreign politicians to do what America wants – like imprison Imran Khan because he refused to boycott Russian energy. Sometimes we pay off politicians so that they’ll kill off China’s Belt and Road projects. So we’re shelling out money to prevent development.
Well, sometimes a bribe is the way to go.
How could we wish anything worse for China and Russia than that they take up the burden of financing Third World pestholes? Our loss? Gosh, we won’t have the DRC, Mali or Burkina Faso on our side.
China does not want ‘pest holes.’ IT wants resources, raw materials, cheap labor, transportation routes… I know of several countries that bought into the Chinese development plan now regret it.
“…required the government to pay contractors nearly $2 billion for work they ALREADY have performed.”
The keyword here is ALREADY. It doesn’t overturn DOGE’s dismantling of USAID going forward.
Just a little point that your TDS has perhaps caused you to overlook. LOL!
We should contest that the work these contractors performed is in fact completed. Tie this up in court forever.
Good thing Roberts’ priority is upholding the Constitution.
Wouldn’t be for any other reason.
One of the worst Chief Justices I’ve ever seen.
How many have you seen?
These expenses started piling up with no viable oversight. Sure, I don’t want to live in a world where I can’t go see a goverment funded trans-sexual opera … or where we don’t send $8M to teach Sri Lankan journalists to use gender-neutral language … but I have to realize that some folks think those types of expenses are frivolous (yes, that’s sarcasm, but it’s 2025 so you have to announce it).
I can’t help but think that everything he does is about something else. Maybe that’s the idea. He’s not interested in a calm tedious working through of things, because he assums (correctly) that this will be suffocated and delayed beyond his term by the bureaucracy and the Dems. He wants confrontation and disruption, perhaps because he believes that this approach will put pressure on his enemies, and force them to make mistakes, and more importantly to alienate the electorate, which I think is the goal.
He is exposing for John Q Public what is really going on in DC.
Doge, its true purpose is shredding the sacred veil that has shrouded inner machinations surrounding Federal spending.
Ask about what a person struggling to make ends meet on Social Security must think when they hear that people are still on S.S. roles and presumably still collecting benefits but exceed age 110. While all the aged are told that SS can not make their lives easier because that’s all there is in the money till. So they are being denied so as to perpetuate Fraud.
Or struggling workers unable to get out from under the Grind, find out their Tax money gets sent all over the Globe funding total bull shit programs. Their blood starts to Boil.
Why on earth would he want to alienate the electorate?
Sociopath?
Better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Had a talk this morning with former fed prosecutor John O’Connor who made sense saying that this is really about not going to the Supreme Court for an “Emergency” unless its truly an emergency. In other words, go to Congress and get it fixed.
Congress IS thee problem.
You’ll get no argument from me.
You are more than likely to be proven wrong. Nothing is certain. But you clearly don’t understand the nuances of SCOTUS jurisprudence. Not many do, so I’m not being critical. Just stating a fact.
Here is how it will play out.
First, the important language from Roberts (taken out of legalese and written so non lawyers can understand it. (h/t Two Pump Chump)
“How can the Supreme Court now review something that is (technically) no longer in force? What is the government supposed to do now to bring itself into the District Court’s good graces? What could it possibly do? And what is the District Court going to do about it? Hold the President in contempt?”
Those are the questions Roberts is asking the district court. There are no good answers. And that is the point. Or points.
There are already 4 dissents. That means when this is brought up on emergency appeal again, SCOTUS will take the case. That is already guaranteed.
Roberts is compromised. But he’s an operator. With 4 dissents he’s already told the district court SCOTUS is going to see the case again and there will be intense scrutiny. That’s what 4 dissents gets you.
And whatever remedy the district court comes up with, you can bet the last dollar in your pocket that there will be a separation of powers violation. It’s unavoidable. Roberts has already said as much with the language he used.
And so when the case returns there will already be 4 votes. And Roberts and Barret will side with the 4, end the charade, put this district judge (and probably many others if I’m right) in his place.
What is playing out here should not be. They should have ended it. But this is the way the system works. Particularly at SCOTUS. And most particularly with Roberts in charge. He is essentially letting the district court do all the dirty work, and providing them the rope to the trap door that they are about to pull.
If I was the govt lawyer I would be disappointed they didn’t end it. But thrilled with the decision. And having serious discussions with my team about how to turn this single case into a SCOTUS slap down of most, if not all, of the forum shopping, lawfare, and district court judges far overstepping their bounds with orders that not only trash the separation of powers, but purport to bind the govt nationwide.
I don’t know if SCOTUS will feel this is the case to do that. But if it’s not, there is one out there that will fit that bill.
You do realize that no one is gonna use up their time reading all of this. How about 2 paragraphs?
I read it and it made for an interesting read
It was worth reading. Took hardly any time at all for the literate.
This is payment for work completed?
No issue.
Yes, The court has not ruled on whether the president could cancel funding for contracts that have not been completed.
I agree that the payments should be completed for the 2 billion. Then audit the paid work to find payments that were not actually done. A few hundred million might not be recovered as the dissenting judge noted but that is money well spent to highlight the sheer amount of fraud and waste that DOGE needs to clean up and that will save many billions in future.
Hard to put into words what we witnessed last night. According to one political operative for the Dems, “I love my party but tonight was a new low. I get silence on this or that policy, and the raw politics of the base’s anger. But, for not a single D to stand to applaud a boy’s brave battle with cancer or a man’s admission to West Point, was a classless disgrace.”
I’ve never seen anything close to it. I’ve seen polls that 80% plus think the Democrats were disgraceful last night. The other 20% have TDS so badly that they’ve lost their minds. As the majority of the posters here are liberals I’d love to hear their justification of these actions. A simple yes, it was terrible might suffice. America was paying attention and Democrats lost future voters based on that display. No question about it.
Anecdotal stories are for the rowdies who eat that stuff up. They dont gave a damn about some sick kid — theyre just using him.
Typical response. Sad.
Hes playing you for a fool. Hes using the kid (a black one is even better) to hoodwink you and steal your vote.
Hemorrhoids acting up?
I don’t disagree, Scott, but both parties pull those heartstrings and politicians usually pretend to care about people. I did not watch the speech. Heard it was interminable – even beating blowhard Clinton’s record.
So you attack an innocent kid. Or a mother who lost their child because of your politics. If you don’t see the sickness in your heart….
And Congressman Greene really “cares” about the country – saying he’s working on articles of impeachment because DJT is “unfit”.
Attempting yet another impeachment 2 months into a one-term is like writing a suicide note for the next election.
Interesting; thanks
Myself, I read a medical journal article that said 87% of people that cite polling data less than 24 hours after an event (without even linking to the fake poll) have a parasitic worm in their brain
CBS YouGov Poll showed
Approval for Trump’s speech – 76%
Approval for closing the border, DOGE, and other issues were all in the 68-77% range.
The Dem Party is facing an existential threat. They stand to not only lose the next election by massive numbers, but their very existence
This is all academic until the midterms. I’d just note two things. First, the 76% is from people who watched the speech, which is already weighted towards Maga (I saw about 10 minutes, but it was just like he was reading from a press release). Second, approval for DOGE depends on how the poll is worded. “Full scale investigation to eliminate fraud and waste” sounds good. However “Musk shutting down government programs” gets 34% in a WaPo-Ipsos poll.
You think acting like that is a useful strategy? Nothing academic about it. The Democrats have lost the narrative.
Sorry I wasn’t referring to the politics of the Democrats’ protests. Yes they seemed juvenile and ineffective. It’s also March in a non-election year, all this will be forgotten by Easter.
Maybe. The incumbent party almost always loses the House.
Yes, hopefully there will be a new party formed by the midterms.
A tea party for all centrists.
Perhaps watch it next time before commenting. Mish himself, no fan of Trump, said the Democrats acted disgracefully. Again if you defend the indefensible you’ve lost the ability to be taken seriously. That’s where Democrats are right now
FYI, Mish response in his tweets. Not here. But hopefully he speaks up about this
I did watch it; the WHOLE thing was a spectacle (Democrats, Republicans and MAGA alike) – and not in a good way.
Democrats booed just like Republicans did previously to Biden and Obama. Green was out of order, just like the “You lie” Republican yelling at Obama. And Trump calling on “Pocahontas” while Vance cackled. Yes, all despicable.
The difference is I (and others) see the disrespect and hatred across the political spectrum. You only see it (or at least call it out) on Democrats and that shows your lack of understanding and hubris and why so few consider your opinions here worthwhile.
But this blog is a market of ideas. So keep contributing (even if you’re pissing in the wind)
Performative outrage. Trump cut $1B funding from cancer research – are you upset about that? Or is that just “waste, fraud and abuse”?
Thanks I just looked that up. Your talking point fails the sniff test. It’s not a cut. It’s a cap to NIH research grants at 15%. So this is across the board. We are broke as a nation. Much of the government rightly needs to be cut. And thus you are willing to look down on a boy who battled cancer and cheer when Democrats sit with no reaction to this uplifting story. Again, seek help.
15% won’t cover the costs of the building, utilities, janitorial staff, etc, etc, though. So it’s effectively a massive cut. My wife has had NIH grant funding (long ago) and it’s not easy to obtain or to keep unless you are basically kicking ass scientifically. Best investment we make, probably.
But hey, it’s easy to complain about some egghead studying Gila Monster spit or whatever (oops…Ozempic)
Yeah I wish we didn’t spend trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan too. Watch the scene from Dave where they cut the budget. One of the cuts was on a program to improve customer satisfaction in a previous US automotive purchase….Or today transgender mice.
What I want to know is: how many 150-year-olds were getting checks from USAID?
Someone doesnt know how to test in COBOL. 🙂
They were voting in 2020.
None
This particular Supreme Court decision does not change a thing about where fiscal policy is headed when it comes to weeding out Waste.
US government needs funds to fund spending.
They will not be raising taxes so they will be going after frivolous budget pork. That is what Doge is exposing.
This is not a monumental decision but borders on a minuscule interpretation about contract Law.
In the meanwhile whole Nation watched as Progressive Dems made complete asses of themselves during State of Union address.
Awwww, the courts may just have found their spine. They may have remembered that Trump Republicanism sounds just great .. till reality arrives. I look forward to more and more reversals of illegal Trump orders, and for the Congress to start having to actually work to find 217 votes to pass these orders into laws. See, Repub congresspeople can find their spines as well and say no to Trump.
why would Trump want to stop payments for work already done. This is what was ltigated correct?. Somehow this doen’t make sense. Shuting down USAID is one thing but you are obligated to pay for what work you authorized and was completed.
Good point but some of this is payments in advance .
Hes not following any laws. He doesnt have to do anything. He can do whatever he wants. That is the whole point.
I agree that most of this is theatre… but it always was, whichever lot are in power.
– The four most conservative justices said the administration’s request should have been granted.
> I must agree, but not because they’re “conservative” but rather because I feel they are right!
>> A lot obviously going on here, but “Tax Payer $” should be first and foremost in terms of “No More” and “Settle” on what must be paid. An unwise choice to go “All In” imo. It looks as though it is being pulled back to legitimacy at least. I don’t condone what was done, and neither should anybody imo, but what was done, looks to be legitimate as much as unforgivable in many circumstances. Lawfully and regrettably, they should be paid.
>>> Where were the Republicans and Conservatives and watchdog groups back when it could have and should have been dealt with. Then it could have been stopped, OR did they ALL not want that? I’m still pissed off, but understand the reality of it. When a new law is created, most often it’s not retroactive, and as such, cannot be used for past legal actions.
Interesting (terrifying?) to see what Trump does in response to an unappealable ruling. Im glad that the courts aren’t letting Trump determine the timing, though, as I’m sure that there is already irreparable harm to the infrastructure needed to actually turn the grants into the services that are necessary to save lives.
I changed “died” in the first sentence above to “does”.
Thanks! Hard to swype on an iPhone.