U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced plans to open more land for oil and gas drilling in Alaska and remove restrictions on building an LNG pipeline and mining road
This follows President Donald Trump’s order to boost energy development in the state
Burgum said the government will reopen 82 percent of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve for leasing and allow drilling on 1.56 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
WASHINGTON, D.C.: U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has announced plans to open more land for oil and gas drilling in Alaska and remove restrictions on building an LNG pipeline and mining road.
This follows President Donald Trump’s order to boost energy development in the state.
Burgum said the government will reopen 82 percent of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve for leasing and allow drilling on 1.56 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He also lifted restrictions on land near the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and Dalton Highway, allowing Alaska to move forward with the Ambler Road and Alaska LNG Pipeline projects.
“It’s time for the U.S. to use Alaska’s rich resources to support the nation’s economy, including Alaskans,” Burgum said.
Drilling in Alaska’s Arctic region has been controversial. Some lawmakers and tribal corporations want more drilling to create jobs, while past Democratic administrations have aimed to protect the environment. A lease auction in January, required by Congress, failed to attract any energy company bids.
Alaska’s Republican leaders, including Governor Mike Dunleavy, have pushed to reverse Biden-era restrictions on resource development. Some Indigenous groups, like the Kaktovik Iñupiat Corporation, welcomed the decision, saying it supports their right to develop their land.
However, environmental groups strongly opposed the move, arguing it threatens wildlife like caribou and polar bears and contributes to climate change. “Expanding oil drilling in the Arctic is harmful to people, wildlife, and the climate,” said Carole Holley of Earthjustice’s Alaska office.
Oil companies remain cautious, as future political changes could once again block drilling in the region.
Quite the statement, eh? Let me explain. I’m well into my 60s and for my entire adult life I’ve heard that public school teachers are underpaid. It has been repeated as a mantra for decades.
Ignoring for a moment whether it is true or not — and the answer to that is generally, it depends — let’s accept the mantra and analyze why public-school teachers are still underpaid after all these years.
It’s not spending. As most voters know, it seems that every stinking year there is some ballot initiative or measure or legislative move to increase spending for our woefully underfunded public-school systems. It never seems to end. There doesn’t seem to ever be a point of “we’re good.”
Total nationwide spending on public K-12 education is approaching a trillion dollars! In most states, public K-12 education consumes around 50% of the entire state budget. Nationwide, we now spend an average of $17,000 per student per year. In New York it is $33,000! Yet teachers remain underpaid.
The Department of Education’s spending has gone from just under $11 billion in 1980 to a high of almost $193 billion in 2010 to last year’s spending of $158 billion. Yet teachers remain underpaid.
The number of administrators versus teachers has exploded — “The number of district administrators in U.S. public schools has grown 87.6 percent between 2000 and 2019 compared to student growth at 7.6 percent and teacher growth at 8.7 percent.” And many (most?) of the administrators make more than teachers. Yet teachers remain underpaid.
Remember when technology was going to transform public education? We’ve spent billions on classroom technology and what have test scores done? At best stayed flat, in many cases they went down.
Rather than throwing away all those billions on technology — projected to increase to over $132 billion by 2032 — which has had no discernable impact on education outcomes, why wasn’t it spent to help out the underpaid teachers? Every teacher out there could probably be making an additional $10,000 to $20,000 in annual salary. In all likelihood this would have led to better educational outcomes than wasting it on unnecessary, ineffective technology. Yet it wasn’t and teachers remain underpaid.
Here in my hometown, the local school district is spending hundreds of millions of dollars tearing down functioning schools and building new ones. They say the schools are old but in the neighborhood I live, many of the houses were built in the 1960s yet no one is tearing them down. In fact, they are in great demand.
I’ve worked as a management consultant for decades and I can assure you there isn’t a for-profit business in the country whose boss says, “Well, things aren’t looking good so we are going to have to tighten our belt. So, we’re going to tear down our building and build a new one!” Never happens because it doesn’t make sense. Yet it is happening in school districts across the land at the same time we continue to hear the sad lament that teachers remain underpaid.
So, no matter how you slice it, spending has gone through the roof over the years yet teachers are still underpaid? This is where the stupidest creatures on the planet analysis comes from.
Do you see a pattern here? Public-school teachers — and generous taxpayers — have been played as saps for decades. And you all just accepted it. No, in fact you all in general wholeheartedly supported it.
And thus, my accurate description of public-school teachers being some of the stupidest creatures on the planet. Don’t shoot the messenger just because it is true.
You all have been the somewhat willing victims of a terrible joke that has gone on for over 50 years.
The teachers unions (NEA and AFT) have done a terrible disservice to teachers — and society at large — for decades. The unions are pretty good at getting Democrats elected but not so good at actually operating as a union for teachers.
Sadly, the unions are an integral part of the Democrat machine, not really “teachers” unions at all. Instead, they take the teacher’s money via dues — and more importantly, their incredible political power — and use them in forced servitude to the Democrat party. A machine that clearly doesn’t want to pay teachers more because they like having an army of disgruntled folks who can be quite effective at getting Democrats elected.
Get that? The evidence is overwhelming they don’t want to pay you more. They want the issue and you underpaid foot soldiers forever. As Forrest Gump would say, stupid is what stupid does.
In the for-profit world, a primary job of a union is to attempt to grab a bigger share of the profits from the shareholders and put it in their members pockets.
If the teachers unions are actually attempting to do so — and it sure doesn’t look like it — they are poor at doing much of anything in helping raise teacher’s pay. But don’t blame the unions, blame the brain-dead liberal teachers who actively support this slavery to the Democrat machine and subsequent wage depression. The vast majority of you are willing participants. When you live by the rule of the tribe above all else, don’t be crying to others because the tribe is using you all like a dirty dishrag.
You can get into a rage over the evil conservatives yet it isn’t conservatives who are holding you back. It is your blind, mistaken belief your education unions are fighting for you rather than accept the harsh, quite obvious reality they don’t really give a damn about you other than to give them political power. You seem to have forgotten the power is yours by your numbers, not theirs.
Now, I’d rather we allow the citizens who earned this money to keep it, but if we are going to spend it anyway, I’d rather raise teacher pay by tens of thousands of dollars — and as the above shows, the money is there. This at least has a chance of actually impacting kid’s educational outcomes.
But I won’t be holding my breath, because history shows public K-12 teachers are some of the stupidest creatures on the planet.
John Conlin is an expert in organizational design and change. He also holds a BS in Earth Sciences and an MBA and is the founder and President of E.I.C. Enterprises. He has been published in American Greatness, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, American Thinker, the Houston Chronicle, the Denver Post, and Public Square Magazine among
You have to respect that, the guy did win. It’s more than half the country… you can not like Trump, you can hate him, but you can’t hate everybody who voted for him… I don’t hate half the country and I don’t want to hate half the country,” Bill Maher said.
Maher’s attitude differs from most Democratic voters I have encountered. Most Democratic voters loathe people who voted for Trump. In my observation, anti-Trumpers vacillate between raw hatred of Trump voters and a childlike refusal to accept that anyone could have voted for him. Viewing themselves as enlightened, objective and well-informed, these poor bewildered saps are 100 percent the product of a media that entirely manufactures a false narrative about the characteristics of Trump positions and the wide variety of reasons people have voted for him three times, in some cases. Democratic voters are so unhinged about Trump, they seem not to have noticed how their own openly socialist and fascist candidates have taken on positions differing little from history’s greatest murdering sociopaths, like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
*******
Here’s another unhinged Democrat inciting violence: @RepJasmine Crockett says you should “punch” your opponents, then says Senator @tedcruz “has to be knocked over the head, like, hard.”
11¹111Of course this freak is violent. She’s a Communist and a fascist, and violence is what Communism and fascism are all about. My question is: Why are people who threaten violence even permitted to hold office?
Top Democrats tell us their party is in its deepest hole in nearly 50 years — and they fear things could actually get worse:The party has its lowest favorability ever.No popular national leader to help improve it.Insufficient numbers to stop most legislation in Congress.
A durable minority on the Supreme Court.
Dwindling influence over the media ecosystem, with right-leaning podcasters and social media accounts ascendant.
Young voters are growing dramatically more conservative.
Democratic Senate retirements could make it harder for the party to flip the House, with members tempted by statewide races.
There are only three House Republicans in districts former Vice President Harris won in 2024, a dim sign for a Democratic surge. There were 23 eight years ago in seats Hillary Clinton won.
Why it matters: Both parties — after losing the White House, Senate and House — suffer and search for salvation. But rarely does healing seem so hard and redemption so distant.
Doug Sosnik — a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton, and widely followed thinker on political megatrends — told us this is Dems’ deepest hole in at least the 45 years since Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980. Sosnik said the 2024 election was at least as much a repudiation of Democrats as it was a victory for Trump.
As Ezra Klein noted this month in his New York Times column, if current population patterns hold, Democrats will suffer a devastating blow after the 2030 census: The party will lose as many as a dozen House seats and electoral votes.
🚨 He points out that in that Electoral College, Dems could win all the states Harris carried in 2024 — plus Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and still lose the White House.
The big picture: Democrats’ dismal reality is not Republican spin. In fact, there’s broad consensus among Democratic leaders that most current political, cultural, media and generational trends are cutting against them.
“Democrats are losing working-class voters,” Klein, co-author with Derek Thompson of the new liberal blueprint “Abundance,” said last week. “They’re seeing their margins among nonwhite voters erode and vanish. They’re losing young voters. Something is wrong in the Democratic Party.”
By the numbers: A deep, comprehensive poll by Democratic pollster David Shor of Blue Rose Research captured vividly and empirically the daunting data.
For those skeptical of polls and sampling size, Shor’s study is based on 26 million online responses collected over the course of 2024, and filtered to adjust to oddities of modern polling.
Shor said on Klein’s podcast, “The Ezra Klein Show,” that his most striking finding — and the one most worrisome to him — is the surging pro-Trump/MAGA/Republican views and voting patterns of young men, immigrants and anyone other than strident liberals.
Shor estimates a 23-point swing against Democrats among immigrants. The swing is very pronounced among Hispanics who consider themselves conservatives: Democratic support dropped by 50%.
But it’s the rise of conservatism among young people, mainly men, that spooks him most. “[Y]oung voters — regardless of race and gender — have become more Republican,” Shor writes in his 33-slide presentation. (Request the deck.)
Ali Mortell, director of research at Blue Rose Research, told Axios’ Tal Axelrod: “Millennials were one of the most progressive generations, and it’s looking like Gen Z is about to be one of the most conservative.”
A gender gap has exploded: 18-year-old men were 23 points more likely to support Donald Trump than 18-year-old women, which Shor called “just completely unprecedented in American politics.”
Sosnik told us that young men who didn’t go to college “are firmly for Trump, not just against Democrats.” He said young white women who didn’t attend college “may be as much anti-Democrat as pro-Trump. And then the outliers are college women, who are very pro-Democratic. But it’ll be very hard to dislodge the Republicans’ success with non-college white men under 30.”
What’s next:Rahm Emanuel — the former House Democrat, Chicago mayor, ambassador to Japan, White House chief of staff and possible 2028 presidential candidate — told us his party needs an emergency meeting of mayors and governors to rethink the party’s perception and priorities, and see what’s working in schools.
“The public has seen us as more focused around a set of cultural interests and issues — climate, ‘woke,’ DEI, abortion — than the American people,” Emanuel said. “All those I care about. But they consumed both our intellectual and thematic energy. The American people said: You care more about that than everything else.”
Emanuel told us Democrats have to stop being a liberal-only party for liberal-only voters: “We used to have liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats. Now we’re basically a liberal party, because African American and Hispanic voters went out the back door. They’re the ones who walked as we became more liberal.”
Emanuel’s big message in conversation after conversation: “The American dream is unaffordable and inaccessible. And that is totally unacceptable. … The forgotten middle class has to be our North Star.”
Wyoming has become the first state in the United States to require proof of citizenship for residents to register to vote. This measure, which will take effect in July 2025, will apply to all elections: local, state, and federal.
Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon allowed the voter residency bill to become law without his signature.
This afternoon, WY Governor Mark Gordon allowed HB 156 to become law without his signature, establishing requirements for Proof of 1 Residency and U.S. Citizenship in order to vote!
While Gordon did not veto the legislation, his decision to refrain from signing it reflects his neutral stance on a law focused on verifying voter eligibility.
ADVERTISEMENT
«I am a strong supporter of the idea that citizens should be residents of Wyoming for a considerable period of time before being allowed to participate in our elections (it took me eighteen years),» Gordon said.
Additionally, he expressed concern over the vagueness of some terms in the law, such as the possibility of rejecting a vote for «any indication» of an issue with registration documentation. This could be difficult for county clerks to apply as there is no clear standard.
Gordon also anticipated that the law would likely lead to litigation. However, he acknowledged that the legislation grants the Secretary of State the authority to regulate voter identification, something he had unsuccessfully attempted last year.
This legislation is another step toward improving election integrity in the state, aligning with Republican policies aimed at ensuring voters are properly established in Wyoming.
Job applications from federal workers, especially those who are employed at agencies targeted by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have gone up significantly this year, according to a report released on Tuesday by the Indeed jobs site.
Applications from those working at such agencies as USAID, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the USDA — all of which have been heavily targeted by DOGE for dismissals — have surged more than 75% above the 2022 levels by February 2025.
The surge in applications from this generally well-educated and highly specialized segment of the workforce comes as job openings are muted nationwide, particularly for the types of knowledge worker positions that displaced federal employees are likely looking for in the market.
This influx of especially skilled and specialized workers is unfolding across the United States, raising disturbing questions about if and how local labor markets can absorb such a surge of job seekers.
With the exact number of federal workers who will end up unemployed unclear, due to some firings being tied up in court battles, it is still too early to determine what will be the broader impact on the national economy, according to Axios.
But Cory Stahle, an economist at Indeed, did point out that there are fewer opportunities right now that match the education and experience of these workers, which is “creating a friction in the labor market.” He added that there is real concern that the job market will not be able to absorb them all.
According to Pew, 31.5% of federal workers have at least a Bachelor’s degree, but almost 70% of the those in agencies targeted by DOGE and active on Indeed in February had at least that level of education.
On March 7, I argued in The Federalist that President Donald Trump should ignore a Supreme Court that would allow lower courts to refuse to uphold the Constitution and instead encroach on executive authority. Recent new encroachments prove my point. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has blocked the EPA from terminating $14 billion in climate grants awarded by the Biden administration, funds now sitting in a Citibank account. Judge Ana Reyes has ordered the military not to enforce Trump’s ban on trans-identifying service members.
These rulings are not mere disagreements, as Chief Justice John Roberts claimed last week when he rejected Trump’s call to impeach a judge who ruled against his deportation policy. They are direct assaults on the president’s constitutional power. I urged Trump to defy such orders then, and I stand by that now — Trump must confront the courts!
Since Jan. 20, a pattern of politically motivated judicial overreach has emerged. Chutkan’s decision overrides Trump’s executive authority to redirect the EPA, preserving Biden-era spending. Reyes’ ruling interferes with his control over military policy, a domain the Constitution assigns to the president and the president alone. In February, a Rhode Island judge forced the release of frozen federal funds, and multiple courts blocked Trump’s efforts to end funding for so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors.
These single district judges, often appointed by past Democrat administrations, issue nationwide injunctions that halt the president’s agenda. This is not judicial review — it is judicial governance. Roberts’ call for “normal appellate review” ignores the reality: Unelected judges are hijacking executive policies in the name of judicial review, and while appeals wind through the courts, executive action stalls, sometimes for years.
Justice Samuel Alito has warned of this for years. In his Obergefelldissent, he criticized courts for imposing policy under the guise of constitutional rulings. In Trump v. United States, he argued with the majority that judicial overreach undermines the president’s ability to fulfill his duties. These latest district court orders bear out his concerns.
They do not check executive power — they seize it, substituting judicial preference for the president’s constitutional role. Article II gives Trump, not judges, authority over federal agencies and the military. When a single judge blocks presidential policy, that judge has assumed far more power than the Constitution provides under the separation of powers.
History offers precedent. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus despite court objections, asserting executive necessity over judicial interference. Trump faces a similar moment. He should disregard Chutkan’s and Reyes’ orders, allowing the EPA to end those grants and the military to enforce his ban.
Roberts’ statement — that impeachment is not the answer to “disagreement” — misses the issue. These are not disagreements over law; they are attacks on Trump’s Article II powers. If Congress will not curb this overreach through impeachment — and with a divided Senate it likely cannot — the president must step in.
Trump was elected to dismantle the bureaucracy and strengthen the military, not to be handcuffed by judges. Each injunction undermines that mandate, replacing the will of voters with the dictates of unelected judges. Waiting for the Supreme Court to resolve these cases risks years of paralysis — too long when you’re choking on tens of trillions of dollars in debt and a massive bureaucracy, and the future of the executive branch is at stake.
Trump should defy these rulings now and force a constitutional confrontation. This is not about defying law — it is about defending the Constitution and the authority it grants the president no matter who is president. The American people expect Trump to do the job he promised. In an unprecedented fashion, he is doing just that.
The courts have an important constitutional role to fulfill. But it’s not to play president.
Curtis Hill is the former attorney general of Indiana.
The Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) issued a new update in its ongoing audit of the Social Security Administration (SSA). This program has been a significant focus for the department, and DOGE has issued weekly updates on its findings on X. In a post about the Social Security matter made on March 12, 2025, DOGE announced a significant change to how the SSA will deal with customer service complaints meant to cut down on fraud.
The investigation began when Elon Musk reacted to the massive number of Social Security numbers over 120 years old. He posted, “According to the Social Security database, these are the numbers of people in each age bucket with the death field set to FALSE! Maybe Twilight is real and there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security 🤣🤣.”
DOGE replied to this post, explaining the significance of these ‘vampires.’ The department posted, “In 2020-2021, @SBAgov issued 3,095 loans, including PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) and EIDL (Economic Injury Disaster Loan), for $333M to borrowers over 115 years old who were still marked as alive in the Social Security database. In one case, a 157 years old individual received $36k in loans.”
Nearly a month after Musk’s initial post, DOGE announced that on March 23, 2024, they had made a significant move to close this loophole. They said, “As of Friday, @SBAgov now: – Requires date of birth collection for all direct loan applications – Pauses the direct loan process for those under 18 and above 120 years old. Basic sanity checks like these are initial steps toward minimizing fraud in government payment programs.”
While most of the response to these moves was positive, some woke activists were enraged. On February 17, 2025, Adam Schiff took to X to make his ill-intentioned post. He said, “Elon Musk is trying to access your personal bank and tax data. The world’s richest man should not and cannot be able to snoop around your personal finances. Period. End of story.”
Other comments under the post were much more positive. Many were baffled that this was a new policy. A comment read, “Wait… so until now, the SBA didn’t check if someone was under 18 or over 120 before giving out loans? No wonder fraud ran wild. The real question is, how much taxpayer money vanished before they added these basic sanity checks? 💸🤦♂️”
Others explained why DOGE is so important. One reply read, “This is exactly why accountability matters. The fact that SBA handed out $333M to applicants over 115—including a 157-year-old ghost—proves how broken the system was. Basic age verification should’ve been standard from day one, not an afterthought.”
A comment hoped for accountability for the people involved in these massive scams. It read, “Hopefully @FBIDirectorKash @PamBondi can track down the fraud recipients and hold all accountable along with the department supervisors who approved and signed off on the fraud. I know so many small businesses that failed because they couldn’t get approved for a small business loan or PPP loans under COVID.
Republican lawmakers are promoting a bill that would limit the power of district judges to impose nationwide injunctions.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., earlier this month introduced the “No Rogue Rulings Act“ (NORRA), which would curtail judges’ ability to make decisions that affect people outside their district.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., confirmed on social platform X that the legislation would come to the House floor next week.
No United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court,” the bill states.
Issa’s legislation came shortly before President Donald Trump demanded the removal of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who barred the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants.
“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!” Trump said on Truth Social.
“The injunctions are nothing more than partisan judicial overreach, and have disrupted the president’s ability to carry out his lawful constitutional duty,” Issa said when introducing NORRA in a House Judiciary Committee hearing, the Times reported.
“This has allowed activist judges to shape national policy across the entire country … something this Constitution never contemplated.”
Trump isn’t the only administration official to call out judges.
Elon Musk, who’s heading the Department of Government Efficiency, previously called for a “wave of judicial impeachments” against judges who blocked actions by DOGE to streamline the federal government.
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, last week introduced a resolution calling for Boasberg’s impeachment, claiming the judge abused his powers. Several other Republicans began preparing other impeachment articles against other judges, The Hill reported.
However, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on Monday shrugged off calls by Trump and other lawmakers to impeach federal judges, Politico reported.
“Look, everything is on the table: Impeachment is an extraordinary measure. We’re looking at all the alternatives that we have to address this problem,” Johnson told reporters.
The speaker and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, are considering other legislative tools to address the federal judiciary, including hearings in the Judiciary Committee to “highlight the abuses.”
Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said on Fox News Monday that it’s time to curb the powers of activist district courts.
President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to accelerate the deportation of Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia, however, issued an injunction and required the Trump administration to bring back two planes of gang members on their way to El Salvador. During an appearance on “The Ingraham Angle,” Hawley said he was frustrated with the misuse of judicial authority through so-called nationwide injunctions.
“The key thing to do here, Laura, is to end the ability of these district courts to abuse their judicial authority by issuing these so-called nationwide injunctions,” Hawley told host Laura Ingraham. “I don’t think they have that authority, properly speaking, under the Constitution, Article III. What they’re doing is they’re purporting these judges, they’re purporting to go out, and to bind parties and individuals who aren’t before them [in their districts].”
Hawley said such actions exceed their constitutional authority.
We only have one Supreme Court that can bind the whole nation. District courts aren’t supposed to be able to do it, and yet President Trump has been subject already to 15 separate, so-called nationwide injunctions,” Hawley said. “In his first term, Laura, there were 64. We have never seen anything like this in American history. It’s incredibly abusive, and Congress ought to end it, and we can end it by just saying, ‘No nationwide injunctions by these district courts.’”
Hawley said this was unprecedented and highly abusive, urging Congress to intervene.
“The Constitution expressly gives to Congress the ability to create the lower courts. The lower courts are not in the Constitution, per se. Congress has the ability to create them, to govern them. I don’t believe that under Article III, these district courts even have the power to issue these nationwide injunctions,” Hawley said. “I think it’s abusive. And that’s why we ought to just say they can’t do it. Congress has the authority to govern them. We should say they do not have the power to issue injunctions nationwide, period. End of story, no more abuse.”
The continuous misuse of judicial powers by district courts, Hawley said, calls for a decisive response from Congress, not just to protect the presidency but to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.
“I noticed that the Democrats, just a few months ago, before the election of Donald Trump, were complaining bitterly about Republican-appointed judges issuing nationwide injunctions. So I had to say this. Let’s have a vote,” Hawley said. “They said they wanted to eliminate nationwide injunctions seven months ago. OK. Let’s do it. Let’s now give them the chance to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and let’s vote on it. I think that this ought to be a no-brainer. Let’s stop the abuse. Here’s the thing. We’ve seen this before. You put judges into office. You think they’re going to be good. They drift left. Let’s take away the power of these judges to issue injunctions like this.”
Upon assuming office on Jan. 20, President Trump signed several executive orders aimed at curbing illegal immigration, designating Mexican drug cartels, TdA, and MS-13 as foreign terrorist organizations. Allegations have surfaced of TdA members engaging in the seizure of apartment complexes in Aurora, Colo., in addition to committing kidnapping and murder.
In response to the Trump administration’s policies, Democratic states and unions have consistently filed lawsuits, leading various judges to grant nationwide injunctions that stall these initiatives. In retaliation, Republican lawmakers are actively considering legislation that would prevent district judges from issuing nationwide blocks on certain executive orders.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 