Author: admin

Former Speaker of the House and California Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi has revealed her reason for entering politics, facing immediate mockery.

Pelosi said it was not the power, fame, or boatloads of cash she had earned during her tenure in the House of Representatives, which, some believe, came via shady stock trades with insider information obtained via her elected position.

Others believe that her decision to remain in politics stems from her deep hatred for President Donald Trump and her desire to be a formidable opponent.

But when she spoke to former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on MSNBC last week, she gave none of those as her reasons for getting into politics.

The Democratic representative gave a familiar political refrain, and one she has used in a variety of settings and for many pieces of legislation, as her motivation.

“My whole mission in politics is about the children,” she said, prompting immediate backlash on X.

“Her bank account would beg to differ,” one X user who shared the video said.

“She’s starting to sound more like Joe the more she talks,” another X user said.

“Not a single person on planet Earth believes that,” another quipped.

“Nancy Pelosi says she joined Congress for the children. ‘1 out of 5 children is living in poverty.’ No Nancy, you went into politics so you could insider trade and make hundreds of millions of dollars,” another X user said in a more pointed comment.

“Nancy Pelosi says her political mission is ‘about the children’ — so that’s why her stock portfolio’s better than Warren Buffett’s?” another said.

“Nancy Pelosi says her mission as a politician is to help children,” activist Oil London said. Pelosi, who is worth an estimated $120 million, said she ‘went from the kitchen to Congress, for the children.’

But “for the children” has been a popular talking point for Pelosi over the years.

“And always For The Children: building a future where every child can reach his or her fulfillment, free from the fear of gun violence,” she said in a June 2022 speech in the House.

“If you want to go into the arena, you have to be prepared to take a punch. And you have to be prepared to throw a punch—for the children,” she said at the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

“We’re not resting until we get this job done, and today we’re taking a giant step in that direction for the children,” she said on March 11, 2022 in a speech about passing new gun legislation.

She has been no stranger to invoking “the children” on X either, with three instances coming this month.

“As a mother and a Member, I was proud to join @MomsRising this week to highlight the importance of protecting America’s working moms and families. While Republicans push forward with abhorrent cuts to Medicaid and food assistance, Democrats are fighting back For The Children!” she said on May 9.

“Public education is not only essential For The Children and for our communities — it is essential for our Democracy. Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than the dollars spent educating America’s children. Invest in our future — tell Republicans, #DontDefundPublicSchools!” she said on May 14.

“3 years since 19 children and 2 educators were murdered at school in #Uvalde, our progress to end gun violence in their name is at risk. House Republicans just voted to make gun silencers more accessible — making everyone less safe. Democrats are fighting back For The Children,” she said on Saturday.

It is plausible that the former Speaker mentions “the children” so much because she is sincere in saying that they have been her driving motivation.

Or should could just be a politically savvy snake who uses “the children” as cover for the radical policies she wants.

Former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) called his 11-year prison sentence for corruption a “political prosecution,” citing former President Trump’s legal troubles as evidence of a biased justice system.

Convicted of accepting bribes and acting as an agent for Egypt, Menendez became the first U.S. official found guilty of serving a foreign government while in office.

Outside court, Menendez said, “President Trump was right… this process is political and corrupt.” He didn’t say whether he would seek a pardon from Trump.

Menendez resigned from the Senate last year after losing his committee chair. He is reportedly considering a political comeback, possibly as an independent.

President Donald Trump has shared an important update on his administration’s staffing progress in a late-night post on Truth Social, announcing a significant achievement in terms of filling key positions. Trump claimed that his administration had broken modern presidential staffing records by making over 2,200 appointments and filling crucial roles in just a few months since taking office. He highlighted the swift action by the Presidential Personnel Office, noting that all appointments had been accepted by highly qualified candidates.

“My Administration is breaking all modern Presidential Staffing Records since taking Office on January 20th,” Trump wrote. “The Presidential Personnel Office has made over 2,200 offers, all accepted, to exceptionally qualified candidates, who are helping us MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. We have sent more nominations to the Senate than anyone ever before, and we will continue to hire America First Patriots as we work together to unleash our Nation’s Golden Age!”

While the president celebrated the rapid pace of staffing, he also made a noteworthy decision to withdraw the nomination of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) for the position of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (UN). The withdrawal came after careful consideration of the potential political risks involved in her resignation from Congress, particularly in light of the narrow Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

The Strategic Decision Behind Stefanik’s Nomination Withdrawal
Elise Stefanik, a prominent New York Republican and key ally of President Trump, was initially nominated to become the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, a position with significant international responsibility. However, the president made the decision to withdraw the nomination, explaining that her exit from the House would pose an unacceptable risk to the Republican efforts to advance vital legislative priorities.

Trump took to his Truth Social platform to justify his decision, emphasizing that it was critical for the GOP to maintain every available Republican seat in Congress, particularly with the slim majority held by the party. In his post, the president explained that Stefanik’s presence in Congress was essential for supporting his legislative agenda, including issues related to taxes, economic growth, border security, and energy policy.

“As we advance our America First Agenda, it is essential that we maintain EVERY Republican Seat in Congress. We must be unified to accomplish our Mission, and Elise Stefanik has been a vital part of our efforts from the very beginning,” Trump wrote.

He further expressed his confidence in Stefanik’s continued role in Congress, stating, “I have asked Elise, as one of my biggest allies, to remain in Congress to help me deliver Historic Tax Cuts, GREAT Jobs, Record Economic Growth, a Secure Border, Energy Dominance, Peace Through Strength, and much more, so we can MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”

With the House of Representatives currently divided by a narrow margin of 218-213 in favor of Republicans, Trump and his allies recognized that any vacancy in the GOP’s ranks could jeopardize critical legislative outcomes. The resignation of Stefanik would have resulted in a special election, potentially jeopardizing the passage of crucial legislation on the president’s agenda. The timing of her anticipated departure was also significant, as several high-stakes bills on issues like border security, tax reform, and energy policy were expected to come to the president’s desk in the near future.

Reactions to Stefanik’s Withdrawal from the UN Nomination
The decision to withdraw Stefanik’s nomination was met with surprise by many, including some members of the Republican Party. The New York Post, which reported on the development, quoted sources who described the move as “absurd” and “a surprise.” Despite the unexpected nature of the withdrawal, Trump’s decision was driven by a calculated political assessment of the risks involved in allowing Stefanik to leave her congressional seat at such a critical juncture.

One unnamed New York Republican official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, commented that Trump’s choice to keep Stefanik in Congress was based entirely on the “math” of maintaining a strong House majority. With the GOP controlling the House by such a narrow margin, Trump and House leadership determined that Stefanik’s continued presence was essential to achieving the president’s policy goals.

“I don’t want to take a chance on anyone else running for Elise’s seat,” Trump stated. “There are others that can do a good job at the United Nations. Therefore, Elise will stay in Congress, rejoin the House Leadership Team, and continue to fight for our amazing American People.”

House Speaker’s Support for Stefanik
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) expressed his support for Stefanik’s decision to remain in Congress, praising her leadership and commitment to the Republican cause. In a press release, Johnson described Stefanik as “a great leader and a devoted patriot,” adding that her decision to stay in Congress demonstrated her dedication to serving the American people and advancing President Trump’s agenda.

“Today’s selfless decision shows America what those of us who work with her already know,” Johnson said. “She is deeply devoted to her country and fully committed to see President Trump’s agenda succeed in Congress.”

Johnson also noted that although Stefanik’s former role as House Conference Chair was now held by Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), he intended to invite Stefanik to immediately rejoin the House leadership team. The speaker’s statement further emphasized the important role Stefanik would continue to play in driving the GOP’s legislative efforts forward.

Stefanik’s Political Career and Her Role in the Trump Administration
Elise Stefanik, 40, has been a significant figure within the Republican Party, especially since her rise to leadership in the House of Representatives. She was one of the earliest supporters of President Trump and became one of his strongest allies in Congress. As a result of her close relationship with the president, Stefanik was one of the first individuals nominated for a key diplomatic post in the Trump administration.

Her initial vetting process for the UN ambassadorship was thorough, and she cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a voice vote on January 30, 2024. However, despite the committee’s approval and the anticipation of her confirmation, Trump ultimately decided that her continued service in Congress was too valuable to risk, given the GOP’s fragile majority in the House.

Stefanik’s decision to remain in Congress is viewed as a testament to her commitment to the Republican Party and the president’s legislative priorities. Her leadership in the House has been instrumental in pushing forward Trump’s agenda on tax reform, economic growth, border security, and other critical issues. By remaining in Congress, Stefanik will continue to play a key role in shaping the future of the Republican Party and advancing policies that align with the president’s “America First” vision.

The Broader Context of the GOP’s Legislative Challenges
The political landscape in the U.S. is currently marked by intense partisan divides, and the Republican Party is facing numerous challenges in advancing its agenda in a Congress that is closely divided. With a narrow majority in the House and a Democrat-controlled Senate, Republicans must carefully manage their ranks to ensure that they can pass legislation on issues that are important to their constituents.

The GOP’s narrow margin in the House means that every vote counts, and defections or vacancies could have serious consequences for the passage of key bills. In this context, Trump’s decision to keep Stefanik in Congress reflects the high stakes of maintaining party unity and advancing legislative priorities. It also underscores the importance of strategic decision-making in the face of a highly competitive and polarized political environment.

Conclusion: Trump’s Staffing Achievements and Political Strategy
President Trump’s late-night post on Truth Social celebrating his administration’s staffing achievements and the decision to withdraw Elise Stefanik’s UN nomination highlights the complex and often unpredictable nature of political strategy. While Trump has made significant progress in staffing his administration with qualified candidates, his decision to prioritize Republican unity in Congress by keeping Stefanik in her House seat underscores the challenges of governing in a divided political landscape.

The president’s comments reflect his ongoing commitment to fulfilling his “America First” agenda, and his strategic approach to maintaining a strong Republican presence in Congress is likely to continue shaping his policy efforts moving forward. As the Trump administration continues to navigate the complexities of a closely divided Congress, the president’s ability to make quick, decisive decisions will be crucial in achieving his legislative goals.

Ultimately, the decision to withdraw Stefanik’s nomination and keep her in Congress serves as a reminder of the importance of political calculation and party unity in advancing policy agendas, particularly in a time of heightened political tension and competition. As the Trump administration continues its work, the outcome of these strategic decisions will play a significant role in shaping the future of U.S. politics.

WATCH my interview with @kayleighmcenany on tonight’s @seanhannity pic.twitter.com/dFchfkDCxK

— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) March 28, 2025

Two Chinese nationals are facing multiple federal charges after allegedly smuggling a dangerous crop-destroying fungus into the United States, prompting serious national security concerns over potential agroterrorism.

According to a complaint filed Tuesday, the individuals—Yunqing Jian, 33, and Zunyong Liu, 34—are accused of bringing Fusarium graminearum into the country. The fungus is known to cause devastating plant diseases, particularly in corn, rice, and barley, and is considered a threat to the U.S. food supply.

The case was announced by U.S. Attorney Jerome F. Gorgon Jr., who said the two Chinese researchers face charges of conspiracy, smuggling goods into the United States, making false statements, and visa fraud.

Court documents reveal that one of the men had hidden samples of the fungus in his backpack while entering the U.S., a move federal authorities say could have had severe consequences for American agriculture.

“The alleged actions of these Chinese nationals — including a loyal member of the Chinese Communist Party — are of the gravest national security concerns,” Gorgon said in a statement. “These two aliens have been charged with smuggling a fungus that has been described as a ‘potential agroterrorism weapon’ into the heartland of America.”

According to an FBI affidavit, the researchers intended to study the fungus at a University of Michigan laboratory, though the specific purpose of their research was not disclosed. The complaint notes that Yunqing Jian had received funding from the Chinese government to conduct work on the pathogen while in China.

FBI Director Kash Patel suggested the incident may signal a broader effort by the Chinese Communist Party to target the U.S. food supply.

“I can confirm that the FBI arrested a Chinese national within the United States who allegedly smuggled a dangerous biological pathogen into the country,” Patel said in a statement posted to his X account.

“… This fungus can cause a disease called ‘head blight,’ a disease of wheat, barley, maize, and rice, causing significant health issues in both humans and livestock. It is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year,” he added.

Meanwhile, federal authorities said on Sunday the man arrested for a suspected terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, was prepared to conduct mass murder using homemade explosive devices and a self-fashioned “flamethrower.”

In addition, the FBI says that the suspect, Mohamed Soliman, an Egyptian national in the U.S. illegally, admitted that he intended to “kill” as many “Zionists” as possible at a demonstration to free Israeli hostages that he intentionally targeted.

As reported by Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany during Monday’s edition of “Outnumbered,” Soliman was found to have had 14 Molotov cocktails on his person along with the flamethrower that he used to injure eight people, at least one critically.

He told authorities he wanted to “kill all Zionist people” and said he wished “they were all dead.”

The FBI has also said that Soliman’s attack has all of the hallmarks of a traditional “lone wolf” assailant, which in and of itself is worrisome.

Soliman, 45, is accused of using homemade incendiary devices to set eight people on fire during a daytime attack at Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall, where the victims had gathered to advocate for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas, Fox News noted.

Video footage shows a shirtless man, believed to be Soliman, standing threateningly while holding two additional devices after the initial assault, as bystanders recorded the scene. Authorities soon arrived and took him into custody without further incident.

In a dramatic escalation of tensions between federal immigration enforcement and state judicial authority, Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Monica Isham has announced her intent to halt all court proceedings in Sawyer County’s Branch 2. Her decision comes in response to the recent arrest of fellow Judge Hannah Dugan by federal agents, and signals a deepening rift over the role that state judges may play in cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions. In an email sent to her judicial peers, ominously titled “Guidance Requested or I Refuse to Hold Court,” Isham warned that, absent clear directives and assurances, she will refuse to convene court sessions, placing her staff and community at risk from what she characterized as unconstitutional deportations and potential “concentration camp” detentions.

This article provides an in-depth, professional analysis of the events that precipitated Judge Isham’s ultimatum, the legal and constitutional questions it raises, reactions from federal authorities, implications for Wisconsin’s judiciary, and the broader national debate over immigration enforcement and judicial independence.

The Arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan
On Friday, federal authorities arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, a sitting state judge, on charges of obstruction of an official proceeding and concealing an individual to prevent discovery and arrest. According to a criminal complaint filed by the Department of Justice, Judge Dugan intervened during a routine misdemeanor hearing for Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican national facing battery charges.

After the hearing, Dugan allegedly instructed court officers to fetch her supervising judge’s card and then personally escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a restricted jury entrance—bypassing the public exit where ICE agents, along with officers from the FBI, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), were waiting to effect his arrest on an outstanding deportation order. Flores-Ruiz was accused of re-entering the United States illegally after having previously been deported, and ICE claimed he had already received due-process review by an immigration judge.

Dugan now faces federal felony charges that could carry substantial prison terms if she is convicted. Her arrest—which reportedly involved multiple law enforcement agencies converging on the courthouse—has shaken the Wisconsin legal community and prompted urgent debate over the proper relationship between state courts and federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Judge Isham’s Defiant Response
Within 48 hours of Dugan’s arrest, Judge Monica Isham of Sawyer County circulated a landmark email to all Wisconsin circuit court judges, asserting that she would refuse to hold any court in her branch unless the state Supreme Court or the Department of Administration issued explicit guidance on handling ICE’s presence in state courthouses.

Key excerpts from Isham’s email include:

“If there is no guidance for us and no support for us, I will refuse to hold court in Branch 2 in Sawyer County. I will not put myself or my staff—who may feel compelled to help me or my community—in harm’s way.”

“I have no intention of allowing anyone to be taken out of my courtroom by ICE and sent to a concentration camp, especially without due process, as BOTH of the constitutions we swore to support require.”

“Should I start raising bail money? If this costs me my job or gets me arrested, then at least I know I did the right thing.”

Isham’s invocation of “both constitutions” refers to her oath to uphold both the U.S. Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. By characterizing ICE detention facilities as “concentration camps,” she tapped into one of the most emotionally charged criticisms of contemporary immigration policy. Her willingness to risk removal from the bench demonstrates the depth of her conviction, and sets up a potential showdown between state judicial prerogatives and federal law enforcement mandates.

Constitutional and Legal Framework
The Supremacy Clause vs. State Judicial Oaths
Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), federal law generally takes precedence over conflicting state statutes and judicial directives. Federal courts have consistently held that ICE detention and deportation orders—once issued after due process before an immigration judge—are enforceable against violators, regardless of state or local objections.

However, state judges also swear oaths to uphold the state constitution. Wisconsin’s Constitution (Article I, Section 8) protects individual liberty and due process under state law. Judge Isham argues that facilitating ICE arrests could run afoul of those protections if she believes federal procedures have not adequately safeguarded the rights of the detained.

Courtroom Protections and Sanctuary Jurisdictions
Nationwide, certain jurisdictions have adopted “sanctuary” policies limiting local cooperation with ICE detainers, typically aiming to promote trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement. However, most sanctuary policies focus on police and jails, not on the judiciary. The question of whether a state judge may lawfully obstruct or refuse to assist federal immigration enforcement has rarely been addressed in the courts.

Some analysts contend that judicial immunity protects judges in the exercise of their official duties, but that immunity does not extend to actions that violate clear federal law or court orders. If a judge were to impede ICE agents who possess valid warrants or detainer requests, she could face contempt proceedings or federal obstruction charges—precisely the fate that befell Judge Dugan.

Federal Authorities Push Back
Following Isham’s announcement, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon criticized the ultimatum on social media, labeling it “problematic” and asserting that no state official is immune from federal law enforcement responsibilities. Border czar Tom Homan echoed that message in a weekend interview, stating that judges are “not above the law” and that refusal to assist ICE in removing convicted or charged criminal aliens crosses a “bright line.”

ICE officials have maintained that individuals subject to deportation orders have already received due process, including notice and a hearing before an immigration judge. The agency emphasized its statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to apprehend and remove noncitizens who lack lawful status or have violated their terms of admission.

Broader Implications and Related Cases
The New Mexico Judicial Arrest
Judge Dugan’s arrest is not an isolated incident. Last month, New Mexico Judge Joel Cano and his wife were charged with harboring a suspected member of the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua gang—designated a terrorist organization by the Trump administration—as well as providing him firearms. Federal prosecutors allege Cano concealed the individual in his residence and aided him in evading immigration and criminal investigations. Cano’s case underscores the heightened scrutiny federal authorities are now applying to any perceived interference with enforcement actions.

Impact on State-Federal Relations
These high-profile arrests threaten to chill state court cooperation with federal agents. Judges nationwide may now face difficult decisions when balancing their perceived duties to protect individual rights against legal obligations to enforce federal warrants and orders. Some observers caution that widespread refusal to assist ICE could lead to jurisdictional gridlock, clogging state court dockets with unresolved cases and undermining the rule of law.

Reactions from the Legal Community
Legal scholars, bar associations, and civic leaders have weighed in on Judge Isham’s stance and the broader conflict it represents.

State Bar of Wisconsin: The bar’s ethics committee is reviewing whether Isham’s refusal to hold court could constitute judicial misconduct. Under Wisconsin Supreme Court rules, judges must “faithfully and impartially” decline from using their office for personal or private gain or to enable others to do so.

Constitutional Law Experts: Professor Linda Greenhouse at the University of Wisconsin Law School notes that no precedent directly addresses a judge’s refusal to facilitate a lawful arrest. “We may be witnessing the emergence of a new category of judicial protest,” she commented, “but the tension between state judicial independence and federal supremacy is not easily reconciled.”

Immigrant Rights Advocates: Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin have expressed support for judges who seek to protect vulnerable individuals from perceived overreach. They argue that ICE’s definition of “due process” often excludes critical rights guaranteed under state constitutions.

Meanwhile, conservative legal commentators warn that allowing any judge to unilaterally defy federal detainer requests could erode national sovereignty, compromise federal immigration objectives, and incentivize legal challenges that clog the courts.

Potential Consequences for Judge Isham
By publicly declaring her intention to halt court proceedings, Isham exposes herself to several potential repercussions:

Judicial Discipline: The Wisconsin Judicial Commission may initiate an investigation for alleged dereliction of duty or misconduct, potentially leading to suspension or removal under state law.

Contempt of Court: If federal agents present valid warrants in her courtroom and she refuses compliance, she could be held in contempt by a federal judge, facing fines or incarceration.

Criminal Charges: While judicial immunity offers broad protection for judicial acts, deliberately obstructing federal officers executing lawful orders could expose her to obstruction or interference charges.

Public Backlash: Constituents and local officials in Sawyer County may view her refusal to hold court as an abandonment of duty, particularly victims and litigants awaiting justice.

Despite these risks, Isham’s email indicates she views her actions as a moral imperative, even at the cost of her career.

Impact on Sawyer County and Wisconsin Courts
Isham’s refusal would effectively shutter Branch 2 in Sawyer County, delaying hearings for criminal defendants, family law matters, small claims, and other civil disputes. The backlog could cascade to neighboring counties, as litigants seek emergency relief or case transfers.

Clerks, bailiffs, court reporters, and staff face uncertainty about pay and safety. With no clear contingency plan from the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, local officials are scrambling to identify substitute judges or relocate cases—at significant logistical cost.

Municipal leaders worry that delays in criminal trials could undermine public safety, allowing repeat offenders to remain free on bail. Civil litigants, including victims of domestic violence and landlords seeking eviction orders, may suffer irreparable harm if courts sit idle.

Historical Precedent and Judicial Protest
While judges have occasionally resigned or refused to take particular cases on ethical grounds, outright refusal to hold all court sessions is virtually unprecedented in U.S. history. During the civil rights era, some southern judges openly defied federal desegregation orders—prompting federal intervention and, in extreme cases, the deployment of the National Guard. However, those conflicts centered on state statutes that directly contradicted federal law, rather than on immigration enforcement actions embedded in federal statutes.

Judge Isham’s protest aligns more closely with instances of “judge strikes” in authoritarian regimes, where entire judiciaries have refused to convene rather than legitimize controversial state actions. The U.S. judiciary has traditionally viewed its role as distinct from political protest, making Isham’s stance all the more remarkable.

Balancing Immigration Enforcement and Judicial Independence
At the heart of this controversy lies a fundamental tension: the imperative to enforce federal immigration laws, and the equally vital duty to preserve the integrity and independence of the state judiciary.

Enforcement Imperative: ICE’s mission to remove noncitizens who commit crimes or violate immigration laws rests on statutory authority and judicial review. Detainers and arrest warrants are tools designed to protect public safety and uphold the rule of law.

Judicial Independence: Judges must remain free from external pressures—executive, legislative, or popular—to ensure fair and impartial adjudication. If judges perceive that federal actions infringe upon constitutional protections or overstep due process, they may feel compelled to protest.

Finding a workable middle ground requires clear intergovernmental protocols. Potential solutions include:

Statewide Directive: The Wisconsin Supreme Court could issue binding guidance on how judges should handle ICE requests, clarifying responsibilities and safeguarding both judicial integrity and compliance with federal law.

Designated Liaison Offices: Establishing court-based “immigration coordination units” staffed by legal experts to review detainer requests and ensure due-process compliance before facilitating arrests.

Legislative Action: The Wisconsin Legislature could enact statutes defining the narrow circumstances under which state courts must—or must not—assist federal immigration enforcement, reducing ambiguity for individual judges.

Absent such measures, individual judges will continue to face agonizing conflicts between their oaths and federal expectations.

Conclusion
Judge Monica Isham’s vow to suspend court proceedings in protest of Judge Hannah Dugan’s arrest thrusts Wisconsin’s judiciary into uncharted territory. The standoff underscores the increasingly fraught intersection of immigration enforcement, federal supremacy, and state judicial independence.

As the legal community, elected officials, and the public await further guidance from the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the Department of Administration, the fate of Branch 2 hangs in the balance—along with the principle that every litigant, criminal or civil, deserves timely access to justice.

Meanwhile, Judge Isham’s actions will be closely watched nationwide as a potential flashpoint in the broader debate over sanctuary policies, the reach of ICE, and the limits of judicial protest. Whether her defiance will prompt constructive dialogue and policy reform, or spiral into chaotic courtroom closures and disciplinary battles, remains to be seen.

For now, the people of Sawyer County and the state of Wisconsin confront a stark reminder that when constitutional duties collide, the path forward is anything but clear.

ince President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, his administration has made substantial progress in fulfilling one of its most contentious campaign promises—aggressively pursuing the removal of undocumented immigrants. According to reports, deportations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have surpassed 100,000, signaling a dramatic shift in U.S. immigration enforcement policies.

The Surge in Deportations
As of the latest figures, ICE has arrested 113,000 individuals and carried out over 100,000 deportations since Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025. These efforts align with the president’s long-standing commitment to securing the U.S. border and curbing illegal immigration, a central theme during his presidential campaign and tenure. ICE sources have emphasized that the administration is adhering to its mission of eliminating unlawful immigrants, including those allegedly involved in gang activities or deemed national security threats.

An unnamed Department of Homeland Security source shared with the New York Post that the efforts align with Trump’s promises, stating, “He’s doing what he was voted in to do. Point blank!” However, as of now, it remains unclear how many of the detainees are convicted criminals or the specific countries from which they originated. Sources suggest that the majority are being deported to Mexico.

A Tougher Stance on Illegal Immigration
Trump’s re-election campaign placed a heavy emphasis on reducing illegal immigration, with several policy actions aimed at curbing border crossings and illegal entries. On his first day back in office, President Trump declared a border emergency, moving swiftly to deploy additional military personnel to the southern border. He also took immediate action to halt the asylum process for individuals illegally crossing the border, while spearheading a nationwide deportation campaign.

One of the key changes made was to significantly boost the capacity of ICE’s detention system. According to The Post, ICE has already “maxed out” its detention capacity, and as a result, the agency has requested additional funding from Congress to accommodate a growing number of arrests. In the first 50 days alone, ICE apprehended over 32,000 individuals, prompting officials to call for an expansion of detention facilities to handle the surge.

Trump’s administration has also focused on addressing transnational criminal groups and gangs, utilizing controversial methods to combat illegal immigration and organized crime. In a bold move, the president invoked the rarely used 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to deport members of violent gangs, including suspected Venezuelan gang members, directly to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador. These deportations occurred without trial, marking a significant departure from typical legal processes.

On Sunday night, 17 suspected gang members from the Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs were transferred to El Salvador in shackles. The use of the Alien Enemies Act, which allows for the deportation of individuals considered threats to national security, has drawn criticism from some quarters, including a federal judge who blocked its application earlier this month.

Border Crossings Plummet Under Trump’s Policies
In addition to the deportation efforts, illegal crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border have dramatically decreased. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), illegal crossings have dropped to levels not seen in decades, with a remarkable decline in March. DHS sources attribute this decline to what has been dubbed “the Trump effect,” referring to the administration’s aggressive stance on border enforcement and the perception that there are now real consequences for attempting to cross the border illegally.

In March 2025, U.S. border agents encountered just under 7,000 illegal crossings—a staggering 94% decrease compared to the 137,000 illegal crossings in the same month the previous year, under President Joe Biden. This follows February’s total of around 8,300 illegal crossings, marking the lowest monthly figures in at least 25 years. According to DHS sources, the reduction is due to a combination of heightened enforcement measures and public awareness that “there are consequences now.”

Migrants are reportedly “scared” of the repercussions they face when caught, with one DHS source noting that “everyone who is caught is charged and does time.” The most significant numbers of illegal crossings continue to occur in the San Diego and El Paso sectors of the border, though the broader trend indicates a sharp drop in illegal migration. If these patterns persist, it is possible that the U.S. could see illegal migration return to levels not seen since 1968.

Legal Challenges and Political Backlash
Despite the success of these enforcement measures, they have not been without controversy. The decision to use the Alien Enemies Act has been challenged in the courts, and earlier this month, a federal judge ruled against its application. However, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal, which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal experts suggest that the outcome of this case could have major implications for the future of U.S. immigration policy.

One individual closely following the developments is former Fox News host Megyn Kelly, who raised concerns about the potential legal ramifications of the Alien Enemies Act and the Supreme Court’s role in this contentious debate. On her SiriusXM show, Kelly suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts may face pressure to rule in a way that could limit the executive branch’s power to bypass typical legal processes when addressing perceived security threats. “John Roberts, above all, knows if he hands down a ruling telling the commander-in-chief that the nine men and women in black robes have the final say over what is perceived as a military threat unleashed on us by a foreign government, he’s on the thinnest of possible ice,” Kelly remarked.

Pushback From Congressional Leaders
While President Trump’s aggressive approach to illegal immigration has garnered significant support from his base, it has also drawn criticism from Democrats and some members of Congress. Senate Democrats, in particular, have expressed concern over the heavy-handed tactics and the use of wartime-era laws like the Alien Enemies Act. Some have accused the Trump administration of overreaching and undermining legal due process, while others have raised alarms about the potential for racial profiling and violations of civil rights.

The pushback from Democrats has only fueled the political polarization surrounding immigration policy. The Biden administration’s approach to border enforcement contrasts sharply with Trump’s, as Biden has emphasized more humane immigration policies and focused on addressing the root causes of migration from Central America.

Despite this opposition, Trump remains resolute in his stance, emphasizing that the reduction in illegal crossings and the increase in deportations are a direct result of his administration’s tough-on-immigration policies. In a statement to the press, a DHS source pointed out, “Illegal entries into the United States are no longer a backdoor way to getting status,” reinforcing the idea that the Trump administration’s immigration strategy has sent a clear message to migrants: the U.S. will no longer tolerate illegal border crossings.

Public Opinion and Legislative Efforts
Public opinion on immigration remains divided, though recent surveys indicate broad support for stricter enforcement and stronger border security measures. According to a 2023 survey conducted by the Program for Public Consultation, a significant majority of Americans—86%—believe that members of Congress should not be allowed to trade stocks in particular industries. This sentiment reflects growing frustration with the perceived lack of accountability and transparency among political leaders, especially when it comes to immigration policy.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has long been an advocate for stricter immigration controls and has made efforts to push for more transparency and stricter regulations regarding lawmakers’ financial activities. Hawley’s Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act seeks to stop members of Congress from trading individual stocks, aiming to eliminate conflicts of interest and ensure that political leaders prioritize the needs of their constituents over personal financial gain.

Despite the political divisions, there is widespread agreement that immigration reform is needed, and the issue will continue to be a central topic in the 2024 election cycle. Trump’s strong stance on immigration has energized his base, and many believe that his policies have made significant strides in securing the U.S. border and reducing illegal immigration.

Conclusion: The Ongoing Debate Over Immigration Policy
The Trump administration’s actions on immigration have reshaped the national conversation about border security, deportations, and the treatment of undocumented immigrants. While the policy changes have garnered praise from some, they have also sparked intense opposition from others who view the administration’s approach as harsh and potentially detrimental to the country’s values of justice and fairness.

As the legal battles continue and the political divide over immigration policy deepens, it is clear that the future of U.S. immigration will remain a key issue in the coming years. The Trump administration’s policies have left a lasting mark on the national discourse, and the impact of these changes will continue to be felt as lawmakers and citizens alike debate the best path forward for the country’s immigration system.

In the end, the ongoing struggle over immigration policy will shape the political landscape for years to come, with each new development fueling the debate over how to balance security, fairness, and compassion in the U.S. immigration system.

In an announcement that is poised to affect more than 5.3 million Americans, the U.S. Department of Education has confirmed that it will resume involuntary collection on federal student loans currently in default. This policy reversal marks the end of a multi-year payment pause initially instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and comes after repeated efforts by the Biden administration to secure broad loan forgiveness were struck down in the courts. Beginning May 5, borrowers with defaulted loans will once again face the full weight of the government’s Treasury Offset Program, including tax refund seizures, benefit garnishments, and salary withholdings.

For many borrowers—and the families and communities that depend on them—this announcement represents a profound change in financial expectations. Less than 40 percent of federal student loan holders remain current on their payments; the rest are either in default or delinquent by 91 to 180 days. In practical terms, hundreds of thousands of tax refunds, Social Security checks, and other federal payments will be intercepted each month to repay outstanding debt. With just two weeks’ notice before collections begin, borrowers are scrambling to understand their options, re-enroll in repayment plans, or—where possible—pursue rehabilitation to avoid Treasury offsets.

This article offers a detailed, professional overview of the policy shift, its legal and administrative underpinnings, the mechanisms of involuntary collection, and practical guidance for affected borrowers. We will explore:

Origins of the COVID-era payment pause

Court rulings that curtailed executive forgiveness efforts

Scope and timeline of the Education Department’s new directives

Operational mechanics of the Treasury Offset Program

Definitions and consequences of loan default

Current borrower statistics and demographic impacts

Statements from key policymakers and advocates

Alternatives and relief options for defaulted borrowers

Long-term implications for higher education financing

By the end of this analysis, readers will have a comprehensive understanding of what the resumption of involuntary collections entails, how the process will be implemented, and the concrete steps borrowers can take in the weeks and months ahead to protect their financial well-being.

1. From Moratorium to Mandate: The COVID-Era Payment Pause
In March 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic shuttered businesses and sent unemployment soaring, the Trump administration—acting under emergency authorities—suspended payments on federal student loans. This extraordinary relief measure, which included a 0 percent interest rate and a suspension of both payments and collection activity, aimed to insulate borrowers from the economic shock of lockdowns and furloughs. The pause was extended multiple times under both the Trump and Biden administrations, cumulatively exceeding three years.

Key features of the pause:

Interest Waiver: All outstanding federal student loans accrued no interest.

Payment Suspension: Monthly payment obligations were put on hold.

Collection Moratorium: Defaulted loans accrued no additional collection activity; Treasury offsets and wage garnishments were halted.

Originally slated to expire in September 2020, the pause was subsequently extended through two executive actions by President Trump and four more by President Biden, most recently through December 31, 2022. In August 2022, the Education Department announced one final extension, pushing the deadline to June 30, 2023, and carving out a narrow exemption for certain borrowers with disabilities. The cumulative effect was unprecedented: over 47 million federal loan holders enjoyed a payment hiatus, while defaulted borrowers—often the most financially vulnerable—were protected from offset actions that would intercept tax refunds and other federal payments.

However, the Sunshine Act and statutory guidelines limit the duration of emergency relief measures, and by mid-2023 the pause was scheduled to expire. Borrowers and servicers alike anticipated a return to normal collections, prompting concerns about the sudden financial shock and its potential ripple effects on consumer spending, credit health, and local economies.

2. The Judicial Roadblocks to Broad Loan Forgiveness
Amid looming repayment resumption, the Biden administration pursued a high-profile loan forgiveness plan in 2021. Under the authority of the HEROES Act, the administration proposed canceling up to $20,000 in federal student debt per borrower for those earning less than $125,000 annually. Economists and advocates lauded the initiative as a critical intervention to address ballooning student debt, but several states and conservative organizations challenged its legality.

By June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, struck down the forgiveness program. The majority opinion held that the executive branch lacked the unilateral authority to discharge student debt on such a massive scale without explicit congressional authorization. As a result, the administration’s last-ditch legislative options were limited: rather than broad base-wide cancellation, relief could only proceed via incremental, rule-making processes—steps that would drag on for months or years without immediate effect.

Subsequent efforts to secure targeted relief—such as increasing Pell Grant eligibility, capping income-driven repayment (IDR) plan payments, or expanding the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) waiver—provided incremental benefits but did not avert the resumption of repayment for borrowers already in default. Against this backdrop, the Education Department faced mounting pressure to restore collection activity in a manner consistent with the law.

3. Scope, Timeline, and Official Announcement
On Monday, April 21, 2025, the Education Department publicly stated that involuntary collections on defaulted loans would restart “as soon as next month.” Deputy Secretary James L. Sands issued a departmental press release outlining the policy:

“Beginning May 5, the Department will initiate involuntary collection through the Treasury Department’s Offset Program. Under this authority, past-due federal debts—including defaulted student loans—will be collected by withholding federal payments, such as tax refunds, federal salaries, Social Security benefits, and other government disbursements.”

The department emphasized that this measure affects only loans in default. While borrowers current on their plans—whether standard amortization, income-driven repayment, or other arrangements—will not face involuntary collections, defaulted borrowers, who represent roughly 5.3 million accounts, will see existing offsets reactivated immediately.

Important dates and deadlines:

Effective Date: May 5, 2025

Notice Window: Borrowers will receive default notices and repayment instructions at least 14 days prior to the first offset action.

First Offsets: Federal payments scheduled for mid-May 2025 will be subject to garnishment.

The Education Department underscored its aim to treat borrowers “responsibly and according to the law,” noting that involuntary collections would be accompanied by outreach efforts to inform defaulted borrowers of rehabilitation options and alternative repayment plans.

4. How the Treasury Offset Program Works
The Treasury Offset Program (TOP) is a long-standing mechanism by which the federal government collects past-due debts owed to federal agencies. Administered by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, TOP operates as follows:

Referral to Treasury
Once a debt is declared in default and all requisite notices have been sent, the Education Department certifies the borrower’s account to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service.

Offset Matching
The bureau cross-references debtor records against federal payment databases—IRS tax refunds, Social Security and Veterans benefits, federal retirement payments, and federal salary disbursements.

Payment Intercept
Eligible payments are intercepted up to the outstanding debt amount. For tax refunds, the entire refund may be withheld. For benefits with protection thresholds (e.g., Social Security Disability Insurance), only amounts above the statutory exemption are garnished.

Application of Funds
Collected sums are applied to the borrower’s defaulted loan balance, reducing principal and any accrued fees.

Unlike private debt collection—where creditors rely on wage garnishment orders subject to state caps—TOP garnishments bypass state garnishment protections, making them particularly potent. Borrowers with multiple federal debts may see offsets across several payment streams simultaneously.

5. Loan Default: Definition and Consequences
Under federal regulations, a student loan enters default after 270 days (nine months) of nonpayment on a standard schedule. Alternative plans, such as income-driven repayment, have their own timelines—typically 360 days of delinquency—before default is declared. Once in default, several adverse consequences ensue:

Immediate Account Acceleration: The entire loan balance becomes due.

Administrative Wage Garnishment: TOP and other collection tools become available.

Credit Damage: Defaults are reported to national credit bureaus, lowering credit scores by 100 to 160 points or more.

Collection Fees: The Education Department may add collection costs—up to an additional 25 percent of the unpaid principal.

Loss of Eligibility: Borrowers cannot receive additional federal financial aid until they resolve the default.

Litigation Risk: In rare cases, the department may refer accounts to private collection attorneys, resulting in lawsuits.

Given these stakes, defaulted borrowers often face a compounding cycle of financial hardship and credit impairment. The three-year moratorium provided vital, if temporary, relief; reactivating collections now will thrust many households back into acute distress.

6. Borrower Demographics and Impact Estimates
Of the roughly 43 million Americans carrying federal student debt, an estimated 5.3 million accounts are in default. An additional 4 million borrowers are in early stages of delinquency (91–180 days past due), placing them at imminent risk of default if they remain unable to resume payments.

Key demographic insights:

Income Bracket: Nearly two-thirds of defaulted borrowers report annual incomes below $35,000.

Age Cohorts: While defaults are concentrated among younger borrowers (25–40 years old), a significant minority are 50 and older—often those who took out Parent PLUS loans.

Degree Level: Default rates are highest among holders of undergraduate debt only, particularly those who did not complete a degree program.

Geographic Distribution: Defaults are disproportionately clustered in rural and economically distressed counties, where employment volatility is greater.

Financially vulnerable populations—including single parents, low-wage service workers, and those with unsteady employment—stand at the forefront of this policy shift. For these individuals, the sudden resumption of offsets may jeopardize their ability to cover basic necessities such as housing, utilities, and food.

7. Official Statements and Policy Rationale
Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the policy as a restoration of legal accountability:

“American taxpayers will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for irresponsible student loan policies. The executive branch does not have the constitutional authority to wipe away debt, nor do loan balances simply disappear. Going forward, the Department of Education, in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury, will shepherd the student loan program responsibly and according to the law.”

The department emphasized that involuntary collections represent a last resort, following extensive outreach and notification efforts. In coordination with loan servicers, the Education Department plans to issue electronic and mailed notices, host informational webinars, and establish special helplines to guide borrowers through rehabilitation and income-driven options.

Treasury Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Sarah Greene added:

“The Treasury Offset Program ensures that federal debts are repaid in a fair and efficient manner. By reactivating offsets for defaulted student loans, we restore balance to the federal lending system—protecting honest borrowers, safeguarding taxpayer dollars, and reinforcing the principle that all government loans must be repaid.”

8. Relief Options for Defaulted Borrowers
While involuntary offsets can be daunting, defaulted borrowers have several avenues to avoid—or mitigate—the impact of Treasury garnishments:

Loan Rehabilitation
A formal process in which borrowers agree to make nine voluntary, reasonable, and affordable monthly payments (typically 15 percent of discretionary income). Successful rehabilitation removes the default status, restores eligibility for federal aid, and allows borrowers to choose a new repayment plan.

Loan Consolidation
Combining defaulted loans into a new Direct Consolidation Loan. Borrowers must agree to either repay the new loan under an income-driven plan or make three consecutive, voluntary, on-time payments before consolidation finalizes. Consolidation eliminates default and collection fees, though it may extend the repayment term.

Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) Plans
Borrowers with low or unpredictable income can enroll in plans—such as Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE), Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Income-Based Repayment (IBR), or Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR)—that cap monthly payments at a percentage of discretionary income. After 20–25 years of qualifying payments, remaining balances may be forgiven.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
Borrowers employed by qualifying public service organizations may receive complete forgiveness after 120 qualifying payments. Temporary PSLF waivers have expanded eligibility, allowing many past non-qualifying payments to count toward the 120-payment requirement.

Hardship Deferment or Forbearance
Short-term solutions for borrowers experiencing unemployment, financial hardship, or medical issues. While deferment and forbearance pause payments, interest continues to accrue—potentially increasing the total balance.

Borrowers wishing to pursue these relief options should contact their loan servicer immediately, review the Education Department’s official online resources at StudentAid.gov, and consider seeking assistance from reputable nonprofit credit counseling agencies.

9. Longer-Term Implications for Higher Education Financing
The resumption of involuntary collections signals a broader policy inflection point: after years of emergency relief and failed executive forgiveness efforts, the federal government is reasserting the principle that student loans are legally binding debts. This shift may have cascading effects:

Behavioral Impacts on Borrowers: Heightened awareness of default consequences may encourage timely enrollment in income-driven plans and proactive engagement with servicers.

Market Signals for Universities: Institutions may face increased scrutiny over tuition pricing and student recruitment, as prospective enrollees weigh the risk of accumulating unsustainable debt.

Legislative Considerations: Lawmakers on Capitol Hill may respond by crafting targeted debt relief bills, overhauling repayment systems, or reforming Title IV funding rules to emphasize completion and postgraduation outcomes.

Policymakers and higher-education leaders alike will be monitoring default rates, offset volumes, and borrower financial health to assess whether the renewed emphasis on collection yields a more sustainable student-loan ecosystem—or whether it deepens economic hardship for those least able to absorb it.

Conclusion
The Education Department’s decision to resume involuntary collections on defaulted student loans represents a watershed moment in federal student-debt policy. After more than three years of pandemic-era relief, over 5 million borrowers will once again face the full force of the Treasury Offset Program. While the move restores legal consistency, it also risks inflicting financial hardship on vulnerable households—particularly those living paycheck to paycheck.

For affected borrowers, time is of the essence. With just two weeks’ notice before the first offsets, borrowers should:

Review their loan status and servicer contact information.

Explore rehabilitation and consolidation options to remove default status.

Enroll in—or recertify—income-driven repayment plans to ensure affordability.

Seek counsel from nonprofit agencies or legal-aid organizations if they face unique hardships.

Ultimately, this policy shift underscores the importance of proactive financial management and informed advocacy. As the nation’s student-loan system continues to evolve, borrowers, servicers, institutions, and legislators must work in concert to balance the imperatives of accountability, access, and economic equity. Only through transparent communication and responsive policy design can the United States chart a sustainable course for higher-education financing in the decades to come.

Some have suggested that the public fallout between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk may be more calculated than expected.

According to Axios, House Democrats are questioning the Department of Justice and the FBI about whether President Trump is included in the Epstein files, as Elon Musk says.

The clearest illustration yet demonstrates how Trump’s political opponents are profiting from the president’s high-profile conflict with his former lieutenant.

Some conservatives online have suggested that maybe this was set up by Trump and Musk to put pressure on the full release of the Epstein list. And now that Democrats are calling for the release of the list, it could be a stunt to expose some high-profile Democrats. This is simply a theory being pushed by some conservatives on social media.

Trump “is in the Epstein files,” Musk wrote Thursday in a post on X, adding, “That is the real reason they have not been made public.”

The Tesla CEO also called for Trump’s impeachment, a position that many Democrats are hesitant to support.

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, Reps. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) requested that they “immediately clarify whether this allegation is true.”

The congressmen requested a deadline for the Department of Justice’s declassification and publishing of the Epstein papers, as well as an explanation for why no fresh documents had been given over since February.

They also demanded a description of Trump’s participation in examining the files, a list of persons involved in their release, and an explanation for why previously given information to Congress had “significant redactions.”

Lynch serves as the acting ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, while Garcia is the leading Democrat on the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets.

“Oversight Democrats are engaged in another baseless stunt that bears no weight in fact or reality. These are the same left-wing lunatics who neglected their oversight duties regarding the Biden administration’s lawless actions and concocted hoax after hoax on President Trump during his first term. No one takes them or their petty letters seriously,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement to Axios.

Bondi disclosed more than 100 pages of Epstein-related records in February as part of the Trump administration’s quest for greater transparency in a variety of high-profile cases.

The papers, however, were heavily blacked, and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), head of the declassification task committee, has accused Bondi of “stonewalling” her requests for further documents.

“We agree with their conclusion that the release of these documents is long overdue,” Lynch and Garcia wrote.

Musk’s allegation “implies that the President may be involved in determining which files should be released and whether files will be withheld from the public if he personally chooses,” the two Democrats wrote.

They noted that Trump and Epstein’s relationship has been well-documented.

“Any attempts to prevent the appropriate release of the Epstein files to shield the President from truth and accountability merits intense scrutiny by Congress and by the Department of Justice,” they added.

Last week, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino vowed to reveal additional footage from the cell housing sexual predator and human trafficker Jeffrey Epstein around the time of his suicide, proving “no one was there but him.”

Epstein’s 2019 death in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City was deemed a suicide, but there are widespread conspiracy theories that he was murdered because of his connections with high-profile celebrities and businesspeople.

Bongino’s remarks come after he and FBI Director Kash Patel faced criticism from the MAGA crowd for dismissing Epstein conspiracy claims during a joint interview on Fox News earlier this month.

New York Attorney General might have believed that going after President Donald Trump was going to make her career, but it could actually backfire on her.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said, in an op-ed for the liberal New York Magazine, that the legal issues James is facing with the Trump administration are of her own making since she first chose to weaponize the law against the president.

“James started it when she ran for New York AG and won in 2018 primarily on an explicit platform of Vote for me, fellow resistance warriors, and I’ll nail Trump. James tweeted that, if elected, she would be ‘leading the resistance against Donald Trump in NYC.’ She solicited campaign donations by vowing to take down the president. Before she had access to any evidence, James declared conclusively that Trump ‘engaged in a pattern and practice of money laundering; and ‘can be indicted for criminal offenses.’ The day after she won office, still having seen no actual evidence, the new AG exulted, ‘We’re going to definitely sue him. We’re going to be a real pain in the ass. He’s going to know my name personally.’ For what? Who knows. Just something,” Honig said.

“James did sue Trump, of course, and won (for the moment). After a circuslike bench trial focused on Trump’s habitual overvaluation of his assets in bank loan applications, New York State judge Arthur Engoron found Trump civilly liable for fraud and slammed him with damages amounting to over $500 million, including mounting interest. During the trial, James made a series of wildly inappropriate out-of-court statements that would ordinarily get a prosecutor fired; at one point, she publicly branded Trump and his family members as liars, while they were testifying,” the legal analyst said.

“Despite the judge’s verdict, James’s theory of liability was so flimsy that it barely concealed her previously acknowledged motivation to stick one to Trump by any means available. The purported fraud victims were multibillion-dollar banks that were repaid in full on their loans to the Trump Organization and made millions in profits through interest payments. Unsurprisingly, a New York appellate-division panel voiced pointed skepticism of James’s victimless case and seems poised either to substantially reduce the verdict or throw it out,” he wrote.

Months after President Trump won the 2024 presidential election, it is now James who is on the hot seat.

Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy AG Todd Blanche last month, alleging that James “falsified records” to secure home loans for a Virginia property she listed as her “principal residence” in 2023—while she was still serving as a New York state prosecutor.

This incident took place in late August 2023, just weeks before James initiated her civil fraud trial against the Trump Organization for inflating property values—a trial that ended with a $454 million judgment.

“Ms. James was the sitting Attorney General of New York and is required by law to have her primary residence in the state of New York — even though her mortgage applications list her intent to have the Norfolk, VA, property as her primary home,” the letter stated.

“It appears Ms. James’ property and mortgage-related misrepresentations may have continued to her recent 2023 Norfolk, VA property purchase in order to secure a lower interest rate and more favorable loan terms.”

In February 2001, James also bought a five-family dwelling in Brooklyn — but has “consistently misrepresented the same property as only having four units in both building permit applications and numerous mortgage documents and applications,” the letter noted.

Pulte also attached several documents revealing that James purchased another property with her father as a co-signer, even though the records inaccurately identified them as “husband and wife” in 1983 and 2000.

“While this was a long time ago, it raises serious concerns about the validity of Ms. James’ representations on mortgage applications,” he wrote.

Iп a move that has Hollywood bυzziпg, comedy legeпds Roseaппe Barr aпd Michael Richards are teamiпg υp to star iп a пew sitcom that promises to steer clear of “woke” treпds aпd iпstead focυs oп timeless, traditioпal valυes. The show, set to premiere пext year, marks a bold retυrп for both stars, who have each faced their share of coпtroversies bυt remaiп icoпic figυres iп the eпtertaiпmeпt iпdυstry.

Α Sitcom Uпlike Αпy Other
Teпtatively titled Back to Basics, the sitcom will ceпter aroυпd a middle-class Αmericaп family пavigatiпg life’s υps aпd dowпs with hυmor, resilieпce, aпd a stroпg emphasis oп family valυes. Αccordiпg to iпsiders, the show aims to captυre the charm of classic sitcoms while offeriпg a fresh perspective oп coпtemporary issυes.

“This isп’t aboυt beiпg political—it’s aboυt beiпg relatable,” Roseaппe Barr said iп a statemeпt. “We waпt to briпg back the kiпd of comedy that makes people laυgh, thiпk, aпd maybe eveп feel a little пostalgic.”

Michael Richards, best kпowп for his role as Kramer oп Seiпfeld, echoed her seпtimeпt, addiпg, “This is a chaпce to create somethiпg aυtheпtic. We’re пot tryiпg to pυsh aпy ageпdas—jυst good, hoпest hυmor.”

Α Retυrп to Form
For Barr aпd Richards, Back to Basics represeпts a secoпd act iп their storied careers. Barr, who achieved legeпdary statυs with her groυпdbreakiпg sitcom Roseaппe, has ofteп beeп oυtspokeп aboυt her views oп caпcel cυltυre aпd the chaпgiпg laпdscape of comedy.

Richards, meaпwhile, has largely stayed oυt of the spotlight siпce his career faced challeпges followiпg a coпtroversial staпd-υp performaпce iп the mid-2000s. His retυrп to televisioп aloпgside Barr sigпals a poteпtial comeback for the actor, who has expressed excitemeпt aboυt recoппectiпg with aυdieпces.

Faпs React: Sυpport aпd Skepticism
News of the collaboratioп has drawп mixed reactioпs from faпs aпd iпdυstry iпsiders. Sυpporters of Barr aпd Richards see the show as a refreshiпg chaпge from the politically charged coпteпt domiпatiпg mυch of today’s media laпdscape.

Oпe faп oп social media wrote, “Fiпally, a show that isп’t afraid to celebrate traditioпal valυes! Caп’t wait to watch.”

Critics, however, have qυestioпed whether the sitcom’s focυs oп “пoп-woke” themes might alieпate certaiп aυdieпces. Some have also poiпted to the stars’ coпtroversial histories, woпderiпg how it will impact the show’s receptioп.

What to Expect
The creators behiпd Back to Basics are promisiпg pleпty of laυghs aпd heartfelt momeпts. Early scripts sυggest storyliпes that explore everythiпg from family diппers aпd holiday traditioпs to iпtergeпeratioпal differeпces aпd the challeпges of moderп pareпtiпg—all with a comedic twist.

“People waпt somethiпg they caп watch with their whole family,” said the show’s prodυcer. “This is that show. It’s aboυt fiпdiпg hυmor iп the little thiпgs aпd remiпdiпg people what really matters.”

Α Bold Statemeпt iп Moderп Hollywood
Iп aп eпtertaiпmeпt iпdυstry iпcreasiпgly shaped by progressive пarratives, Back to Basics staпds oυt as a bold statemeпt. Barr aпd Richards, both kпowп for their υпapologetic approach to comedy, appear ready to embrace the challeпge of creatiпg a sitcom that dares to be differeпt.

Αs the premiere date approaches, oпe thiпg is clear: Back to Basics is set to spark coпversatioпs—aпd pleпty of laυghter—wheп it hits screeпs пext year. Whether yoυ love or loathe the idea, the pairiпg of Barr aпd Richards is already shapiпg υp to be oпe of the most talked-aboυt collaboratioпs iп televisioп.