Trump sues BBC for billions over 'deceptive and defamatory' edit of his Jan. 6 speech, blasts foreign election interference



President Donald Trump filed a massive defamation lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Corporation on Monday over an edit of his Jan. 6, 2021, speech that appeared in a BBC "Panorama" documentary.

The lawsuit claims that the BBC's "deceptive and defamatory distortion, doctoring, manipulation, and splicing damaged President Trump in his occupation, damaged his professional reputation, and portrayed him as engaging in supposed calls for rioting and violence that he never actually made."

'The FAKE NEWS "reporters" in the UK are just as dishonest and full of s**t as the ones here in America.'

The complaint notes further that the "aggressively anti-Trump" documentary, which aired shortly before the 2024 presidential election and painted Kamala Harris as an optimal candidate, constituted "a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election's outcome to President Trump's detriment."

A tale of two speeches

Trump originally said at 12:12 p.m. in his speech on Jan. 6, 2021:

Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Any one you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness.

The president noted nearly an hour later after first raising concerns about voting irregularities and potential fraud in the 2020 election, "Most people would stand there at nine o'clock in the evening and say, 'I want to thank you very much,' and they go off to some other life, but I said, 'Something's wrong here, something's really wrong — can't have happened.' And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."

The "Panorama" documentary spliced and reorganized Trump's remarks to make it appear as though he said, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more."

In addition to creating a false narrative by coupling two parts of the speech that were divided by over 50 minutes' worth of content and omitting Trump's call for supporters to behave "peacefully," the documentary showed flag-waving men descending on the Capitol after the president spoke — despite the video having been recorded before Trump's speech.

RELATED: 'Enemy of Europe': Liberal globalists attack Trump over recognizing 'civilizational erasure' in Europe

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The Telegraph obtained and reported on a whistleblower memo earlier this year revealing that there were concerns at the BBC over the apparently deceptive work.

The whistleblower memo noted that the "mangled" footage made Trump "'say' things [he] never actually said" and insinuated, with the help of the footage of men marching on the Capitol, that "Trump's supporters had taken up his 'call to arms.'"

Too little, too late

Last month, the BBC came under fire both in the United States and in the United Kingdom.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told the Telegraph, "Trust in the media is at an all-time low because of deceptive editing, misleading reporting, and outright lies. This is yet another example, of many, highlighting why countless Americans turn to alternative media sources to get their news."

Donald Trump Jr. tweeted, "The FAKE NEWS 'reporters' in the UK are just as dishonest and full of s**t as the ones here in America!!!"

"This is a total disgrace. The BBC has doctored footage of Trump to make it look as though he incited a riot — when he in fact said no such thing," wrote former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. "We have Britain’s national broadcaster using a flagship programme to tell palpable untruths about Britain’s closest ally. Is anyone at the BBC going to take responsibility — and resign?"

In the face of mounting pressure, the BBC issued a retraction, and the director-general of the BBC, Tim Davie, and Deborah Turness, the head of BBC News, both resigned in disgrace.

"Like all public organizations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent, and accountable," Davie said in statement. "Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made, and as director-general I have to take ultimate responsibility."

Turness similarly assumed some responsibility for the fiasco, noting the controversy had "reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC" and adding that "the buck stops with me."

'The BBC had no regard for the truth.'

Turness suggested, however, that the broadcast corporation was not biased.

"In public life, leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down," said Turness. "While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong."

Samir Shah, the chair of the BBC, subsequently sent a personal letter to the White House apologizing for the edit; however, the network refused to pay compensation, claiming that there was no basis for Trump's defamation claim.

Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss encouraged Trump to take legal action against the BBC, suggesting in a Nov. 15 interview that the network's apology was insufficient "because they keep doing it again and again. They have painted a completely false picture of President Trump in Britain over a number of years. They've done the same thing about conservatives in our country."

Pay the piper

Trump's lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and demands judgment against the BBC for at least $5 billion in damages, states:

The lack of any effort by the BBC to publish content even remotely resembling objective journalism, or to maintain even a slight semblance of objectivity in the Panorama Documentary, demonstrates that the BBC had no regard for the truth about President Trump, and that the doctoring of his Speech was not inadvertent, but instead was an intentional component of the BBC's effort to craft as one-sided an impression and narrative against President Trump as possible.

A spokesperson for Trump's legal team told the Guardian that "President Trump’s powerhouse lawsuit is holding the BBC accountable for its defamation and reckless election interference just as he has held other fake news mainstream media responsible for their wrongdoing."

A spokesperson for the network said in a statement, "As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case."

A spokesperson for the prime minister's office noted that while Downing Street will always "defend the principle of a strong, independent BBC as a trusted and relied-upon national broadcaster reporting without fear or favor," the prime minister's office has "also consistently said it is vitally important that they act to maintain trust, correcting mistakes quickly when they occur."

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

This Supreme Court case could reverse a century of bureaucratic overreach



Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

RELATED: Judges break the law to stop Trump from enforcing it

Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP via Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

'Agitated' cruise passenger was served 33 drinks in hours, subdued by security, injected with sedative, later died: Lawsuit



What was supposed to be a fun family cruise to Mexico ended in panic, a physical confrontation with security, a death that officially was ruled a homicide — and now a lawsuit.

The wrongful death suit claims a passenger on a cruise a year ago was served 33 alcoholic drinks in a "matter of hours," and crew members used pepper spray when the California father reportedly became unruly. Ship security detained the passenger who was later given an injection as a sedative before he died, according to the suit.

'The next phone call she gets, he's dead.'

Michael Virgil, 35, went on a vacation with his family aboard the Royal Caribbean Navigator of the Seas cruise ship in December 2024.

On Dec. 13, 2024, Virgil boarded the ship in San Pedro, California, with his fiancée Connie Aguilar, their young son, and relatives for a three-day cruise to Ensenada, Mexico, according to USA Today.

Kevin Haynes, an attorney for the family, told the Daily Mail that Virgil's cabin was not ready when he boarded the cruise ship, so he went to one of the ship's bars.

The lawsuit claims Virgil was served 33 alcoholic beverages — but it's unclear if he consumed all of the drinks.

CBS News reported that that lawsuit said Royal Caribbean crew members "negligently" overserved alcohol to Virgil "in a matter of hours" while he showed signs of intoxication.

Virgil "became agitated" when he couldn't locate his cabin, according to the suit, which was filed Friday in federal court in Miami, where Royal Caribbean is headquartered.

Christifer Mikhail, a passenger aboard the Navigator of the Seas, recorded cellphone video of Virgil violently kicking a door on the cruise ship.

RELATED: College football player raped girl on family cruise, feds say — and allegedly asked her appalling 2-word question afterward

Mikhail told KTTV-TV in December 2024, "The gentleman, that was drunk, said he was going to kill us. He started chasing us down the hallway."

KTTV added that "passengers say he attacked two crew members. And attempted to kick down a door to try to get to one of the crew members."

Several security members are seen in the video surrounding Virgil before confronting him.

The lawsuit adds, "Royal Caribbean crew members, including security personnel, then tackled decedent to the ground, stood on decedent’s body with their full weight, and compressed decedent’s body, causing decedent to stop moving."

Haynes added to the Daily Mail that "the first domino that fell in terms of causing his death was mechanical asphyxiation, and that is where approximately five, maybe more, Royal Caribbean employees were trying to restrain him by putting their full body weight on him. And they did that for three minutes."

The ship's security members detained Virgil by using zip ties, handcuffs, and pepper spray.

'They put Michael in a refrigerator and continued the cruise for multiple days.'

Aguilar claimed she found out about the incident when her name was called over the ship's intercom.

Aguilar was brought to Virgil, where she said she saw her fiancée on a gurney with zip ties on his wrists.

Haynes told the Daily Mail, "They assured her, 'Everything's going to be fine. We’re going to give him a sedating injection, just go back to your cabin.' The next phone call she gets, he's dead."

The lawsuit alleges that the ship's medical staff injected Virgil with haloperidol as a sedative.

According to the National Alliance on Mental Health: "Haloperidol is a medication that works in the brain to treat schizophrenia. It is also known as a first-generation antipsychotic (FGA) or typical antipsychotic. Haloperidol rebalances dopamine to improve thinking, mood, and behavior."

Virgil was pronounced dead at 8:32 p.m. on the first day of the cruise when the ship was more than three miles offshore, according to the Daily Mail.

Haynes said, "They put Michael in a refrigerator and continued the cruise for multiple days."

Virgil’s body remained aboard the ship until the Navigator of the Seas returned to California on Dec. 16, 2024, three days after the cruise commenced.

RELATED: Mother and her adult son allegedly beat up 65-year-old woman on cruise ship amid argument

The County of Los Angeles Medical Examiner ruled Virgil's death a homicide that was caused by "combined effects of mechanical asphyxia, obesity, cardiomegaly, and ethanol intoxication."

Fox News noted, "The report also said the injury occurred from 'body compression during restraint by multiple ship security personnel' and 'ingestion of ethanol.'" The cable network included a copy of the medical examiner's report, which was filed in April.

Virgil’s blood alcohol concentration measured between 0.182% and 0.186%, roughly twice the legal driving limit in California.

"While not lethal on its own, this level of intoxication can depress respiratory drive, impair coordination, and diminish the individual's ability to respond to distress during restraint," the autopsy report said, according to the Daily Mail.

Haynes told the Daily Mail, "His behavior was out of character for him. He was scared and acting out of fear. Whatever Michael may have done during that stressful time, fueled by alcohol, it shouldn't have given him a death sentence."

A spokesperson for Royal Caribbean, the world’s second-largest cruise company, told Blaze News, "We were saddened by the passing of one of our guests, worked with authorities on their investigation, and will refrain from commenting any further on pending litigation."

Citing the lawsuit, NBC News noted that maritime common law requires cruise ship companies to "supervise and assist passengers likely to engage in behavior dangerous to themselves or others."

Haynes stated, "We are seeing an incredibly alarming number of serious injuries and fatalities on cruise ships. This should never happen again."

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

New York teacher compelled 7th graders to view deranged pornographic images, damning lawsuit claims



The conservative legal outfit American Center for Law and Justice filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against a public school district in New York after a teacher allegedly subjected seventh graders to pornographic materials on multiple occasions.

The complaint, filed on behalf of two parents and their minor children, alleges that "under the guise of an art lesson," Bridgette Gates — a teacher with the Watertown City School District who "resigned as an art teacher, ... was rehired as an English teacher, and remains on administrative leave," according to Syracuse.com — intentionally exposed around 100 students to "pornographic and sexually explicit imagery over a two-week period in September 2025, without providing any advance notice to parents or offering an opportunity to opt out."

'It's almost criminal.'

According to the complaint, Gates directed her students at Case Middle School to visit the gallery on the Keith Haring Foundation website using their school-issued Chromebooks during class time.

At the time of publication, the gallery contained various sexually explicit images and images of bodily mutilation, including multiple cartoons and paintings depicting men masturbating; a cartoon depicting a man with a fist-tipped penis; a cartoon depicting a man being choked by his penis; a painting mocking the martyrdom of St. Sebastian, depicting him with an erection and impaled by multiple airplanes; a painting of a character with a mouth in the place of an anus; and a painting of a penis wearing a wig.

The deviant agitprop was created by Keith Haring, a hallucinogenic drug-abusing homosexual activist who died of AIDS-related complications in 1990.

A spokesperson for the Haring Foundation told Artnet that it is aware of the conservative group's response to the alleged incident at the school and acknowledged that some of Haring's images may be inappropriate for some audiences.

The lawsuit alleges that Gates acknowledged that "some of the images were inappropriate" yet told her 12- and 13-year-old students to "ignore them and be mature." Gates allegedly continued showing the images to kids despite signs of unease and resistance.

RELATED: Elementary school teacher allegedly possessed thousands of files of child sex abuse material

Photo by Adam Glanzman/Bloomberg via Getty Images

After learning of the content in late September, concerned parents contacted the teacher, school administrators, and local law enforcement.

Stephanie Boyanski, a plaintiff as well as the parent of one of the plaintiff students, told WWNY-TV in September, "It's almost unbelievable."

"It's almost criminal," said Heather Trainham, another parent.

Plaintiff parent Jessy Roberts noted that her son "knew it was inappropriate, but he wasn't sure if he should speak out or not, because they're of authority."

'Schools are not free to override that authority or to "correct" the family’s moral instruction.'

In the face of parental backlash and concerns raised at school-board meetings, Gates was reportedly placed on paid administrative leave, the assignment link was removed from Google Classroom, and the district admitted to parents that students had "come across inappropriate content." There was, however, no apology from the district.

The ACLJ sent a letter on Nov. 21 to Larry Schmiegel, superintendent of the school district, stating that "because of the District's lax monitoring of its curriculum and teachers, and its deliberate choice to shield the teacher from accountability, the harm done to Mses. Boyanski and Roberts' children is irreparable and ongoing."

The legal group demanded that Gates be issued a formal reprimand; that the school adopt a policy not to show children sexually explicit content without parental notification and to provide an opt-out if future curriculum includes such content; and to provide counseling for kids impacted by the images — and provided the district with a Dec. 1 deadline to act.

The lawsuit filed this week requests that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York declare that the school violated parents' First and 14th Amendment rights; bar the district from repeating its error; require the district to implement age-appropriate safeguards; and award damages for the alleged constitutional violations.

The district did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

"Parents should not be forced to choose between public education and their family’s values. The Constitution draws a bright line: Parents, not the state, decide how and when their children are introduced to sexual content," the ACLJ said in a release. "Schools are not free to override that authority or to 'correct' the family’s moral instruction through compulsory exposure to explicit material. When officials discard that line, the courts must restore it."

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

Costco attacks the tariff plan that puts America — and Americans — first



Costco is suing the Trump administration.

Yes, Costco. The warehouse temple of middle-class stability where Americans stock their freezers, fill their carts, and feel briefly insulated from the chaos of the broader economy. Costco thrives when the American consumer thrives.

Remember, when faced with a choice between standing with the American worker or protecting the globalist status quo, Costco sided with the status quo.

So why file suit against the administration? The company’s board donated heavily to Democrats in the 2023-2024 cycle, and now its leadership wants its tariff money back. The lawsuit doubles as a political favor and a financial windfall.

In short, Costco refuses to accept the new populist moment.

Fighting the populist tax revolt

Trump’s tariff program funds his most audacious promise: eliminating income taxes for working Americans and issuing a $2,000 tariff “dividend” as early as next year. This would mark the largest direct transfer of economic power to workers in modern history.

Costco wants to stop it.

The company that markets itself as the moral alternative to Walmart now positions itself as the moral critic of tariff-driven tax abolition. For decades, Americans have trusted Costco as the “good” warehouse store — high quality, honest pricing, reliable value. But the rotisserie chicken glow fades fast when the company sues to block a working-class tax cut.

Costco insists its lawsuit is about fairness. Please. It’s all about politics.

Stuck in a pre-Trump mentality

Trump upended the left’s narrative by putting workers — not donors, not multinationals — at the center of national policy. The tariff-funded tax revolution threatens decades of Democratic posturing about “helping the little guy.”

So Costco’s leadership had to intervene.

The company claims it fears a pending Supreme Court ruling that overturns tariffs without refunding the money companies paid. In reality, Costco wants a heads-I-win, tails-I-win scenario.

If tariffs stay, Costco raises prices to recoup costs. If tariffs fall, Costco demands a refund. What it will not do is refund customers who paid higher prices.

Costco argues that tariffs fall under Congress’ taxing authority. A federal circuit court agreed, ruling that tariffs are a core congressional power. That argument never troubled Democrats when they rebranded an Obamacare tax as “not a tax” to shove it through the courts.

When Democrats extract revenue for their political projects, the courts call it progress. When tariffs return money to American workers, Costco calls it unconstitutional.

The truth about taxes

Income tax is the burden of wage earners, not the wealthy. Costco knows it. Democrats know it. Everyone knows it.

The wealthy use capital gains, trusts, foundations, and investment shelters. Eliminating income taxes barely touches them. It liberates the working class — precisely the group Democrats once claimed to defend while quietly shifting their coalition toward illegal aliens and the ever-expanding alphabet of sexual identities.

Trump exposed the contradiction: Democrats talk about workers. Trump delivers for them.

RELATED: Is a tariff a tax?

Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Costco chose poorly

Costco’s lawsuit will not collapse its business model. Americans will still buy their bulk salsa, tires, kayaks, paper towels, and of course, the hot-dog combo that has famously resisted inflation for decades.

But they will remember this moment.

When faced with a choice between standing with the American worker or protecting the globalist status quo, Costco sided with the status quo. A company famous for its generous return policy may soon see a return movement of its own as consumers decide they want their tariff-inflated dollars back.

The company’s lawsuit reveals something not so flattering about the “good” big-box store: Liberal elites love talking about helping workers — as long as it never requires losing money for workers.

The Trump tax-and-tariff revolution threatens that arrangement. And Costco’s leadership made its position clear. I’ll still eat their hot dogs after making a few returns and taking a few extra free samples.

Lawsuit: California’s Race-Based Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

California’s new gerrymandered congressional map was drawn “with illegal racial intent and with illegal racial considerations,” a new lawsuit filed Tuesday alleges. Brought on behalf of several California residents by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), the legal challenge contests the legality of the Golden State’s recently enacted congressional map. Approved by California voters last […]

Lebanese Democrat sues over her ouster as US immigration judge as Trump admin fires 8 more



Immigration courts are not part of the judicial branch but rather part of the executive branch, where they are housed under the Department of Justice — meaning the Trump administration doesn't have to take any guff or tolerate suboptimal performances from those warming their benches.

In the interest of maximizing efficiency and fulfilling the president's promises to the American people, the Trump DOJ has made a series of changes to the courts under its purview. The bulk of these changes concern personnel, namely judges.

'All of the judges are now sitting speculating about whether they’re next.'

The administration has sacked or accepted the resignations of at least 100 immigration judges across the country while simultaneously onboarding what the DOJ refers to as "deportation" judges — those keen to earn over $159,000 making "decisions with generational consequences" and ensuring "that only aliens with legally meritorious claims are allowed to remain."

The Justice Department added eight more names to its triple-digit tally of ousted immigration judges on Monday, this time in New York City.

The latest firings — which were confirmed to the New York Times by an official at the National Association of Immigration Judges and a DOJ official — reportedly included Amiena Khan, assistant chief immigration judge at 26 Federal Plaza.

Khan, a former NAIJ president who donated on multiple occasions to Democratic campaigns, previously criticized the first Trump administration's efforts to speed up the deportation process as well as immigration courts' embrace of a "law enforcement ideology."

Olivia Cassin, an appointee of former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch, told the Times, "The court has been basically eviscerated."

RELATED: Federal judge limits warrantless detentions by ICE in Colorado — White House fires off defiant response

Photo by Bryan Cox/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement via Getty Images

Cassin, who got fired at another New York City courthouse last month, added, "It feels like a Monday afternoon massacre."

Carmen Maria Rey Caldas, a Spanish-born immigrant who became an immigration judge in 2022 after criticizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during Trump's first term, complained to the Times that "all of the judges are now sitting speculating about whether they’re next and the impact that that may have in their ability to remain impartial and do their jobs fairly."

Rey Caldas was fired from her job as immigration judge in August.

The DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review declined to comment to the Times about the dismissals.

Amid the latest slew of terminations, one disgruntled former immigration judge, a U.S.-Lebanese dual citizen named Tania Nemer, sued the DOJ, claiming she was the "victim of unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII and the First Amendment."

Nemer, who ran unsuccessfully for a judicial office in Ohio as a Democrat before becoming an immigration judge under the Biden administration, accused the DOJ of firing her because of her sex, national origin, and partisan activities, despite acknowledging that no reason was given for her termination.

"The lightning-fast, precipitous timing indicates that the incoming administration's decision was made — not as part of a careful evaluation of Ms. Nemer's qualifications or fitness for office — but instead as part of a rushed attempt by the new administration to target disfavored civil servants," the Democrat said in a complaint.

According to her lawsuit, Nemer filed the complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Office, which dismissed it, saying the termination was a "lawful exercise" of the removal power possessed by President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

"What happened to Tania Nemer is a disgrace," Nemer's attorneys said in a statement. "For more than 50 years, Title VII has prohibited discrimination in the federal workforce. The Department of Justice had a legal obligation to investigation [sic] Tania’s termination. But now the government is asserting a constitutional right to override the law and engage in discrimination. That is wrong. Title VII is unquestionably constitutional."

Blaze News has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

The Trump administration appears keen to have a different caliber of immigration judge sit on cases across the country.

In September, War Secretary Pete Hegseth approved sending as many as 600 military lawyers to the DOJ to serve as immigration judges.

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

BBC Grovels To Trump After Getting Caught Doctoring His Speech

'Sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited'

Biden FBI's Arctic Frost surveillance of lawmakers could cost the government, thanks to 'real teeth' measure in funding bill



Republican lawmakers officially passed their funding bill to reopen the government on Monday night. In addition to getting the ball rolling on reopening the government, their bill sets the stage for possible retribution over the Biden FBI's Arctic Frost operation.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) published damning documents last month regarding the Biden FBI's Operation Arctic Frost, an investigation that ultimately morphed into former special counsel Jack Smith's federal case against President Donald Trump regarding the 2020 election.

'Arctic Frost was a grotesque abuse of power. It was Joe Biden's Watergate.'

The documents revealed that the bureau not only subpoenaed records for over 400 Republican individuals and entities but secretly obtained the private phone records of numerous Republican lawmakers as part of what the Iowa senator called a "fishing expedition."

According to the Grassley, those behind Arctic Frost "were spreading a wide net because they were looking for anything they could to hook on Trump, put Trump in prison, keep him from running for president, and things of that nature."

The funding bill passed by the Senate this week contains a provision that would enable any senator whose phone records were "acquired, subpoenaed, searched, accessed or disclosed" without his or her knowledge to file a civil lawsuit against the government inside the next five years for at least $500,000 plus legal fees for each instance of a violation.

Senators would be able to take legal action if at the time their records were seized, they were a target of a criminal investigation; a federal judge issued an order authorizing a delay of notice to the senator in question; the government complied with the judge's order; and the subpoena was faithfully executed.

RELATED: Republicans torch Obama judge over his role in Biden FBI's 'partisan vendetta,' demand impeachment

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The provision, which is retroactive to 2022, notes that "no officer, employee, or agent of the United States or of any Federal department or agency shall be entitled to assert any form of absolute or qualified immunity as a defense to liability" in relation to such violations.

"It's designed to put real teeth into federal law that prohibits the executive branch from surveilling the Senate," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — whose Senate office hard-line and cellphone records were reportedly targeted — told the Daily Caller. "Arctic Frost was a grotesque abuse of power. It was Joe Biden's Watergate."

"[It’s] a common-sense provision to ensure that no Department of Justice — Democrat or Republican — ever does that again," added Cruz, who confirmed to Politico that Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) was "directly" responsible for the inclusion of the provision.

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told the Daily Caller the provision serves to protect against "a weaponization of government against members of the Senate" and stressed that "senators are going to take responsible action, and that's what we've done here."

Democrat lawmakers complained about the measure.

"I'm shocked that a huge change in policy would be dropped into a bill at the last minute, and the first that most senators learn about it is in the press," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told the Caller. "This is one more way in which the bill that passed the Senate tonight is even worse for the American people."

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) similarly clutched pearls over the provision, telling Politico, "I am furious that the Senate minority and majority leaders chose to airdrop this provision into this bill at the eleventh hour — with zero consultation or negotiation with the subcommittee that actually oversees this work."

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

Bomb Threats And Bad Ballots Mark Election Day In New Jersey

'Democrats are once again trying to change election rules at the last minute to count ineligible ballots,' Chairman Joe Gruters said.