No slaughter for the CIA's DEI office — yet



President Trump won the 2024 election promising to gut Biden-era DEI across the federal government, calling it "illegal and immoral." The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence tried to do exactly that — moving to fire 19 career officers who had spent their time on diversity, equity, and inclusion assignments instead of actual intelligence work.

Two Democrat-appointed judges said not so fast.

'As long as the employee subject to termination chooses to pursue reassignment, the agencies must attempt to reassign her.'

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 Thursday that the CIA and ODNI have to let the 19 DEI-linked officers appeal their firings and, in some cases, apply for reassignment before they can be shown the door, the Washington Times reported.

The panel found the agencies skipped procedural steps required for a reduction in force — a technicality that's now kept the firings frozen for well over a year, according to Bloomberg Government.

Writing for the majority, Biden-appointee Judge Nicole Berner — joined by Obama-appointee Judge Stephanie Thacker — ruled the officers had enough of a claim to their jobs to sue in the first place.

Berner wrote: "As long as the employee subject to termination chooses to pursue reassignment, the agencies must attempt to reassign her."

RELATED: 'BIG WIN': Trump calls SCOTUS 'Slaughter' ruling the greatest increase of presidential power in 100 years

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

In a blistering dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer, a George H.W. Bush appointee, argued that Congress gave intelligence directors "unfettered discretion" to fire employees precisely so courts couldn't micromanage personnel decisions at agencies handling national security.

He called the injunction unlawful and urged the Supreme Court to step in, calling it a serious separation-of-powers problem: judges telling the CIA how to run its own house.

The ruling lands days after the Supreme Court handed Trump a win affirming his broad authority to fire employees, with a separate case providing a narrow carve-out for officials like Federal Reserve board members.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

John Roberts Again Undermines SCOTUS Legitimacy With Irreconcilable Slaughter And Cook Opinions

In one ruling, SCOTUS affirmed the president's power to fire independent agency officials. On the same day, it invented a fourth branch of government to protect the Fed.

Here Are The Key Takeaways From SCOTUS’ Monday Decisions

Of the three political opinions issued by SCOTUS on Monday, the Trump v. Slaughter case will have the greatest effect.

Thomas RAILS against SCOTUS ruling on firing of Fed governor — with 2 conservatives siding with liberals



Two of the conservatives on the Supreme Court have sided with the three liberal justices to rule against the president's decision to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook while a lawsuit continues.

President Donald Trump has been trying to fire Cook since 2025 after she was accused of committing mortgage fraud through evidence gathered from the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

'Today’s decision is an unprecedented incursion on the executive branch.'

On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh ruled against the president being allowed to fire Cook while the litigation continued. Four other conservative justices dissented.

"Not only the fact of independence but also the appearance of independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s design," wrote Roberts in the majority opinion.

He went on to assert that the president had not followed due process in firing Cook, which he indicated should have included offering an explanation for her removal, allowing her to respond, and setting up a deadline for the response. However, he also said in a footnote that the president could fire Cook if he tried again and followed due process.

The president responded in a post on Truth Social.

"The Cook Lawsuit, having to do with her suitability in sitting on the Board of the Federal Reserve, was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis," Trump wrote, "we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!"

Roberts said the ruling was necessary to maintain the independence of the Federal Reserve and to assuage the public.

"Any change in that scheme must come from Congress, not the courts," Roberts continued. "That is why we cannot accept the government’s contentions in this case. To do so would allow the president to remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after.”

Justice Clarence Thomas called the arguments for the independence of the Federal Reserve unconstitutional.

"Today’s decision is an unprecedented incursion on the executive branch," Thomas wrote in the dissent.

"Many do not share the court’s rosy appraisal of the past century. But if the court prefers an independent Federal Reserve Board, then its issue is not with the president but with the Constitution," he added.

RELATED: Warsh approved to replace Powell as Federal Reserve head — and even 1 Democrat supports him

Cook responded in a statement Monday that accused the president of acting out of political motivation.

"It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people," she wrote.

She has denied the allegations and has not been charged with any crime.

While the president has been demanding that the Federal Reserve lower interest rates, he has backed off on that campaign after some metrics showed inflation climbing to 4%.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

John Roberts: Presidents Have Executive Power. Also John Roberts: No, They Don’t

Taken together, Cook and Slaughter reveal a chief justice once again attempting to split the baby between constitutional principle and institutional pragmatism.

Supreme Court Allows Lower Court Blockade On Trump’s Federal Reserve Firing To Remain In Place

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court declined to halt a lower court blockade against President Trump's removal of Lisa Cook from the Fed.

Supreme Court Rules Trump Can Fire Executive Officials

'Those officers must be removable by the President'

Why did the stock market crash on good jobs news? Glenn Beck unpacks the sick game Wall Street is playing



Last Friday, the stock market had an abysmal day, losing well over $1 trillion. It was the worst single-day drop of 2026 for the S&P 500 and the worst day in over a year for the Nasdaq, which fell over 4%.

This sudden and dramatic dip surprised many because it occurred immediately after a jobs report revealed that May saw the addition of 172,000 new jobs — over twice the amount that experts forecasted. Unemployment also stayed the same at 4.3%

The report showed that “by every plain English measure, Americans are working; things are good,” says Glenn Beck.

“So why did the market panic on news that you and I would call encouraging?” he asks.

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn unpacks “the whole game” that is the Federal Reserve and Wall Street’s addiction to cheap money.


“For two years, Wall Street has been betting on one thing above all else ... but it’s not [AI],” he begins.

“It's the Federal Reserve about to make money cheap again, and they love cheap money.”

Wall Street, Glenn explains, was expecting the government to slash interest rates soon. But when the job market came in strong, those hopes were suddenly dashed.

“Have you ever leaned on a door that you thought was closed or unlocked, and you fell through? It was kind of like that on Friday,” he analogizes.

On top of that, the AI trade was already experiencing a backslide.

Wall Street, having had high hopes for AI growth, discovered just days before the stock market plummet that Broadcom (a prominent AI chip maker) did not raise its future predictions as many had anticipated — even though Google’s parent company had just announced it was raising a massive $85 billion to buy more AI chips and build data centers.

As a result, its stock dropped significantly, and it brought several other tech/AI stocks down with it.

“So understand what actually happened here,” says Glenn. “It wasn't the good news that scared everybody Friday. It was the truth that the Fed is not riding in to rescue the overpriced stocks, and maybe, just maybe, the AI miracle has a price tag attached to it that somebody should check before buying stock.”

This is tough news to stomach, he admits.

“That 401k or pension that you're counting on rides on the market, and days like Friday took a big bite out of it. Also, you want a mortgage on the house. The 10-year is now above 4.5%. The rates are punishing,” Glenn sighs.

“It's going to stay that way. Your grocery bill, your gas, your rent. Inflation is at 3.8% means they're not coming down soon, and a Fed that has to say ‘tough on the price inflation’ and is going to — that means it's going to be tough for a while,” he continues.

But there’s a silver lining we can’t ignore.

“America's strength ... has never come from cheap money or get-rich-quick fevers. It never has. Pain always comes from that — always,” Glenn declares.

“Where America has always rallied, done well, and fixed herself is when people who make things, fix things, grow things, show up and are encouraged to do what they do best.”

Glenn urges his listeners to stop “[hanging their] hope on the Fed or on Washington or the next shiny thing the market is chasing.”

“Get out from under your debt wherever and however you can; build something that doesn't depend on a rate cut; strengthen your family and the people around you,” he implores.

“The real security was never something that was printed on a building on Constitution Avenue. It was built in your home with your hands and with your character.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Scott Bessent is the secret weapon for Trump's economic plan



Scott Bessent may well be the most consequential secretary of the treasury since Alexander Hamilton — not simply because of the policies he advances, but because of the conditions he confronts and the clarity with which he is executing President Trump’s broader economic vision.

Like Hamilton before him, Bessent has stepped into an economy weakened by a long period of policies that, however well intentioned, failed to serve the enduring interests of the American domestic economy.

Before entering public life, Bessent operated at the highest levels of global finance. As a key figure alongside Stanley Druckenmiller, he helped execute one of the defining macro trades of the modern era — the successful challenge to the Bank of England’s currency peg in 1992. The lesson was enduring: Systems that ignore economic reality do not last. Markets force alignment.

What Bessent is executing is a re-centering, not only of economics, but of strategy.

It is precisely that market-grounded realism that now underpins the implementation of the administration’s economic strategy. But Bessent is not simply a market practitioner. His time teaching the history of economic thought at Yale reveals the deeper foundation of his approach.

He sees the economy not as a series of quarterly data points, but as a system shaped over time by production, energy, capital formation, and national power. That synthesis, of theory, history, and practice, places him firmly in the Hamiltonian tradition and makes him a natural architect for translating President Trump’s economic doctrine into operational policy.

After the Revolutionary War, the United States was financially strained under extreme levels of debt, industrially underdeveloped, and newly severed from its economic relationship with the British Empire. Hamilton’s achievement was to turn that fragility into a foundation for strength.

He tied fiscal credibility to growth, fostered domestic industry, and deployed tariffs with precision — high enough to generate revenue and support development, but not so high as to suffocate competition. He was not managing decline; he was reversing it.

Bessent faces a modern analogue, an American economy navigating the aftermath of its own rupture, not from a formal empire, but from the post-World War II Pax Americana and the rules-based system it sustained. The task, again, is not to preserve a fading order, but to build a new foundation, one that reflects the strategic reset articulated by President Trump and now being systematically implemented through the Treasury Department and beyond.

The parallel is difficult to ignore. Decades of globalization prioritized efficiency over resilience and consumption over production. The result is an economy that remains large but is increasingly imbalanced, dependent on external supply chains, tilted toward financial engineering, and less capable of sustaining broad-based growth. Bessent’s significance lies in recognizing this reality and acting on it, not in abstraction, but in execution of a defined national strategy.

Like Hamilton, he is not merely managing the economy he inherited; he is working to re-anchor it, aligning markets with the administration’s emphasis on domestic strength, industrial capacity, and economic sovereignty.

That begins with debt. The United States now carries historically elevated fiscal obligations layered on top of structural weakness. The answer, as in Hamilton’s time, is not austerity alone, but growth — stronger, more durable expansion rooted in production, investment, and rising capacity.

Debt is not ignored; it is made sustainable through expansion, a core pillar of the administration’s supply-side orientation.

RELATED: Grants are a secret weapon for American communities

NicolasMe/Getty Images

This framework was articulated clearly in Bessent’s speech at the Reagan Library. At its core is a simple recognition: An economy hollowed out by flawed globalization cannot sustain either prosperity or fiscal stability.

The answer is not withdrawal, but reordering, a principle that sits at the heart of President Trump’s economic agenda. His formulation — de-risk, not decouple — captures that balance. It preserves the benefits of trade while restoring the primacy of national resilience.

This is not a rejection of globalization but its correction, a distinctly Hamiltonian instinct and one now being operationalized across trade, capital flows, and industrial policy.

Energy is central to this vision. Cheap, secure energy is not a talking point; it is the precondition for winning the next phase of economic competition, particularly in artificial intelligence.

Computing is power. Without abundant energy, neither technological leadership nor sustained growth is possible. This, too, reflects a deliberate alignment between Treasury policy and the administration’s broader push for energy dominance.

So too does the shift back toward productive capital. For years, policy favored financial engineering over real investment. Bessent’s emphasis is different, directing capital toward infrastructure, manufacturing, and technological capacity, translating strategic intent into capital allocation.

Markets have responded not in spite of this shift, but because of it.

His early attention to Federal Reserve mission creep reinforces the broader theme. By insisting that the Fed operate within, not above, the constitutional framework, Bessent is reasserting a principle that has eroded: Economic power must remain accountable. It is a subtle but critical component of restoring coherence between monetary authority and elected economic leadership.

To understand his significance, however, is to see the broader architecture now taking shape. This is not a collection of policies. It is a doctrine, one that reflects both intellectual lineage and political mandate.

At its core is a modernized American system, domestic production, strategic protection, and national development. Layered onto it is a Monroe Doctrine-style approach to economic security, treating the Western Hemisphere as a strategic sphere.

But what distinguishes this strategy is not its articulation but its execution — the translation of President Trump’s strategic instincts into coordinated economic statecraft.

In late 2025, largely under the radar, pressure on Iran’s financial system intensified and key elements of its banking sector began to fail. It generated few headlines, but the signal was unmistakable — a targeted disruption of financial plumbing rather than a blunt sanctions regime.

This is economic statecraft executed with precision — identifying pressure points, applying force selectively, and achieving strategic effect without spectacle. It reflects Bessent’s background in markets, where understanding fragility is everything, and his role in implementing a broader geopolitical-economic strategy set at the presidential level.

RELATED: No more free ride for federal grant hogs

Porcorex/Getty Images

Within this framework, Bessent is the intellectual anchor and operational executor, aligning fiscal policy, capital markets, and economic structure with national purpose as defined by the administration.

What this represents is a break from the postwar consensus. The Pax Americana was a historic achievement, but over time it evolved into a system that often detached American policy from American strength.

What Bessent is executing is a re-centering, not only of economics, but of strategy.

Just as Hamilton anchored the early United States away from dependence on the British Empire and toward internally generated strength, Bessent is anchoring the modern economy back toward its domestic foundations, while executing a presidential mandate to rebuild American economic sovereignty in a more fragmented world.

But the defining parallel is not philosophical. It is practical. Hamilton did not simply write or speak. He executed, building institutions, implementing policy, and translating theory into durable structure in real time. Bessent is doing the same, not in isolation, but as the principal architect and executor of a broader economic vision set from the top by President Trump.

That is what makes him consequential. Not the speeches, though they matter. Not the framework, though it is clear. But the execution, policy applied in real time, reshaping the trajectory of the American economy.

That is the Hamilton standard. And by that standard, Bessent is the first secretary of the treasury to meet it.

Editor's note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

New Fed Chair Has Chance to Right-Size ‘Disaster’ of Bloated Staff

A new chairman of the Federal Reserve is an opportunity to scale back the system’s staff, whose numbers have swollen in recent years and now far exceed that of similar institutions in other countries.

The post New Fed Chair Has Chance to Right-Size ‘Disaster’ of Bloated Staff appeared first on .