Gabbard CLEANS HOUSE after warning Brennan, Clapper 'have a lot of their own people' squirreled away



Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has positioned herself as a leader in exposing how American intelligence officials have long evaded accountability for misleading the nation — not just about Russiagate, but also into war.

Gabbard indicated in an August interview with New York Post columnist Miranda Devine that a reckoning is under way; however, there remain challenges — including some posed by antagonistic holdovers from previous administrations.

"When you talk about how do we change this, we have to recognize that both of them — [ex-CIA Director] John Brennan and [ex-DNI] James Clapper, as leaders in the intelligence community — they have their own disciples," said Gabbard. "They have a lot of their own people that they brought in with them or that they mentored in a mirroring of their own image, and many of those people still exist within the intelligence community now."

Gabbard made abundantly clear to the "bad actors" on Wednesday that she means business.

Hours after announcing that she had revoked the security clearances of 37 current and former officials over their involvement in the Russiagate scandal, Gabbard revealed that she plans to radically shake up her agency.

"Over the last 20 years, ODNI has become bloated and inefficient, and the intelligence community is rife with abuse of power, unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence, and politicized weaponization of intelligence," Gabbard said in a statement.

RELATED: Tulsi Gabbard hammers James Clapper, revealing Russia hoax wasn't his first major deception

Photographer: Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images

"ODNI and the IC must make serious changes to fulfill its responsibility to the American people and the U.S. Constitution by focusing on our core mission: find the truth and provide objective, unbiased, timely intelligence to the president and policymakers," the DNI continued.

To this end, Gabbard indicated that she is working on "ODNI 2.0": "the start of a new era focused on serving our country, fulfilling our core national security mission with excellence, always grounded in the U.S. Constitution, and ensuring the safety, security, and freedom of the American people."

One of the key differences between ODNI 1.0 and ODNI 2.0 is that the new version will be a great deal lighter.

'Ending the weaponization of intelligence and holding bad actors accountable are essential to begin to earn the American people's trust.'

Gabbard plans to can over 40% of the workforce at her agency by the end of fiscal year 2025 — layoffs her office indicated will save taxpayers over $700 million annually and improve the ODNI's efficacy "as the central hub for intelligence integration, strategic guidance, and oversight over the Intelligence Community."

Since assuming the role of director of national intelligence, Gabbard has already reduced the ODNI by nearly 30%, canning over 500 staffers.

Blaze Media contributor and investigative reporter Steve Baker noted that the personnel at these intelligence agencies have "been overwhelmingly bad guys."

"We're talking about a massively large percentage of the intelligence services," Baker said. "The lying employees are there to subvert the America First and Trump agenda and are actively doing so."

Baker suggested that one of the reasons this has taken so long is that before cutting deeper, Gabbard, like other Trump agency heads, first had to deal with obstructionist holdovers in more senior positions.

While these layoffs may help maximize efficiency at the ODNI, Baker acknowledged that "there's a lot of casualties of war in this," particularly when it comes to newer employees on probationary status.

In addition to trimming the fat, the DNI is effectively closing a number of subagencies that have become "redundant."

A fact sheet from the ODNI indicates that the ODNI's Foreign Malign Influence Center now faces the same fate as its congressionally mandated partner organization at the State Department, the Global Engagement Center — the rebrand of which Secretary of State Marco Rubio closed in April.

The ODNI noted that the FMIC earned extinction when it was "used by the previous administration to justify the suppression of free speech and to censor political opposition."

RELATED: Tulsi Gabbard scores huge win for Americans' data privacy against foreign governments

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center and the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center have similarly been targeted in the restructuring and deemed redundant.

According to the ODNI, "descoping" or "refocusing" these three subagencies alone will save taxpayers $46 million a year.

After a determination that that the "unique intelligence-related capability at [the National Intelligence University] is narrow in scope and does not require a stand-alone university," the school's intelligence-related programs are being transferred to the National Defense University for an estimated savings of $40 million annually.

Gabbard is also closing the ODNI's Reston, Virginia, campus and moving the National Intelligence Council to the main ODNI campus in nearby McClean.

The ODNI noted further that Gabbard already removed the partisan holdovers on the External Research Council for leaking classified information to reporters.

When asked to comment on whether suspected "disciples" or bad actors were among those now facing termination, a spokesperson for the ODNI told Blaze News that 'offices were refocused for a number of reasons including because they 'may have been used to weaponize intelligence against Americans' and were used 'by the deep state to push a partisan agenda.'"

"Ending the weaponization of intelligence and holding bad actors accountable are essential to begin to earn the American people's trust, which as long been eroded," Gabbard explained.

Blaze News has reached out to the ODNI for additional comment.

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

Democrats created this court monster — now it’s eating them



The Supreme Court’s recent ruling greenlighting mass layoffs at the Department of Education sends a clear message: The courts no longer belong to the Democrats.

For decades, Democrats relied on judges to impose policies they couldn’t pass through Congress. But that strategy has collapsed. With a conservative majority now on the bench, the judicial workaround has given way to constitutional limits — and the left is losing.

Every time Democrats sue to block Trump’s orders, they hand him another opportunity — and this court is more than ready to lock in conservative victories for a generation.

In the final week of its 2024-2025 term, the high court:

  • Curbed federal courts’ ability to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions.
  • Affirmed the right of parents to opt their children out of school lessons that violate their religious beliefs.
  • Allowed South Carolina to deny Planned Parenthood Medicaid funding for non-abortion services.
  • Approved mass layoffs across the government — at least temporarily.

In high-stakes emergency cases, Trump keeps winning — notching victories in nearly all 18 Supreme Court petitions. That includes greenlights to deport migrants to third countries and enforce the transgender military ban.

Short-term gains, long-term pains

Democrats thought they could run out the clock with courtroom delay tactics. Instead, they handed Trump a fast pass to the one branch he dominates.

Only one branch of government speaks with a single, constitutionally defined voice — the executive. And right now, that voice belongs to the president, no matter how loudly the deep state screams.

Unlike the executive, Congress isn’t built for speed. It’s a fractured, slow-moving body by design — hundreds of voices split by region, party, and ego. The judiciary can splinter, too, with power scattered across lower courts nationwide.

But the Supreme Court? That’s a different story.

With a 6-3 conservative majority, Trump holds a 2-to-1 advantage. Imagine if Republicans had that kind of dominance in Congress.

Trump wouldn’t be scraping by with a razor-thin 220-212 majority in the House. His agenda would cruise through. In the Senate, forget the 60-vote filibuster firewall — Trump’s bills would pass outright.

Reconciliation wouldn’t be a high-wire act. It would be routine. No more watching the Senate parliamentarian gut key provisions from his One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Granted, the Supreme Court can’t launch policy offensives like Congress or the White House. It waits for cases to land.

But thanks to Democrats, those cases keep coming. Every time they sue to block Trump’s executive orders, they hand him another opportunity — and this court is more than ready to lock in conservative victories for a generation.

Dems’ Achilles’ heel

For decades, Democrats treated the courts as a shortcut to power. When they couldn’t pass laws, they let judges do the work. Roe v. Wade was the crown jewel — a sweeping federal abortion mandate they never could have gotten through Congress. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted the legal reasoning was flimsy.

They used the same playbook to expand the welfare state and rewrite social policy from the bench. Judicial activism became the norm, and both sides played the game. But Democrats played it harder — and now the rules are turning against them.

What once looked like a string of permanent victories has turned into a pipeline of defeats. Every lawsuit they file hands Trump’s Supreme Court another shot at affirming his agenda. Even when he technically loses, the rulings often leave behind a roadmap showing exactly how to win the next round.

RELATED: Supreme Court grants massive victory to Trump administration on cutting down Department of Education

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Democrats’ Supreme Court problem could get a lot worse. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s oldest liberal at 71, has Type 1 diabetes and a history of health problems. If she steps down during Trump’s term, he could lock in a 7-2 conservative majority.

And if either Clarence Thomas, 77, or Samuel Alito, 75, decides to retire, Trump could replace them with younger conservatives — extending the court’s rightward tilt for decades.

Securing a conservative legacy

Trump has every incentive to issue bold executive orders. Each lawsuit the left files creates another opening for the Court to back him — and turn temporary wins into permanent precedent.

By chasing headlines and placating the base with short-term court fights, Democrats are handing Trump the long game. Their decades of judicial overreach have backfired. The courts they once controlled now serve as Trump’s most powerful weapon.

HHS surmounts obstacles set by Democrat-appointed judges, gives thousands of bureaucrats the boot



The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revealed in late March that it was downsizing its workforce from 82,000 to 62,000 employees as part of a broader overhaul intended to maximize efficiency, save taxpayers money, and help make America healthy again.

The agency sent notices of reduction in force to 10,000 employees. Another 10,000 workers apparently left voluntarily, accepting early retirement and buyout offers.

The threat of a proper housecleaning enraged Democrats and, of course, pink-slip recipients, who filed legal challenges. Democrat-appointed U.S. district judges proved more than willing to hold up the terminations, prompting the government to appeal and the Supreme Court to weigh in.

'Despite spending $1.9 trillion in annual costs, Americans are getting sicker every year.'

Taking full advantage of the path cleared by the high court, HHS finalized layoffs for thousands of employees on Monday.

An HHS spokesperson told Blaze News that "all employees who were originally notified, who aren't covered under the N.Y. v. Kennedy case, and those who haven't had their notice rescinded have been terminated."

How it started

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the layoffs in late March, noting that the restructuring would:

  • save taxpayers $1.8 billion per year through the reduction in the workforce of about 10,000 full-time workers;
  • streamline the functions of the department by consolidating 28 divisions into 15 divisions, reducing regional offices from 10 to five, and centralizing core functions;
  • "implement the new HHS priority of ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins"; and
  • make Americans' experience with the HHS more responsive and efficient.

The health secretary noted on X that while the moment was difficult, "the reality is clear: what we've been doing isn't working."

"Despite spending $1.9 trillion in annual costs, Americans are getting sicker every year. In the past four years alone, the agency’s budget has grown by 38% — yet outcomes continue to decline," wrote Kennedy. "We must shift course."

Straight out of the gate, senior officials at the National Institutes of Health including Christine Grady, the wife of former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, got the boot along with Fauci allies Clifford Lane, deputy director for clinical research and special projects at NIAID, and Emily Erbelding, director of the NIAID division of microbiology and infectious diseases.

Establishmentarians clutched their pearls over these and other firings at HHS.

Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, bemoaned the layoffs, telling Nature, "This will go down as one of the darkest days in modern scientific history in my 50 years in the business.

"It's a bloodbath," one U.S. Food and Drug Administration employee told CNN.

Former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf took his doomsaying onto LinkedIn, noting, "The FDA as we've known it is finished, with most of the leaders with institutional knowledge and a deep understanding of product development and safety no longer employed. I believe that history will see this a huge mistake."

RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Two major legal actions were launched in recent weeks with the apparent aim of writing the terminations off as unlawful and undermining the MAGA agenda: a class-action lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia on behalf of ex-HHS employees and a lawsuit filed on May 5 by Democratic attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia, seeking to block the RIF.

Both cases were assigned Democrat-appointed judges, the class-action lawsuit to an Obama judge and the blue states' lawsuit to U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose, a Biden appointee.

'Thank you for your service to the American people.'

As is the apparent custom of Democrat-appointed federal judges, Judge DuBose obliged the plaintiffs, blocking the Trump administration from finalizing the layoffs and requiring HHS to file a status report by July 11.

DuBose suggested that they had "sufficiently shown irreparable harm" and that the "Executive Branch does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress."

How it's going

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed federal agencies to continue with their mass layoffs, staying a Clinton judge's order that had blocked the administration from proceeding without congressional approval.

On Monday, the Supreme Court sent another message on theme, letting the Trump administration execute mass layoffs at the Department of Education.

RELATED: Career feds act like they’re the ones running the country

Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

Citing the high court's July 8 decision, HHS informed thousands of employees on Monday that their time at the agency was over as of close of business.

“You are hereby notified that you are officially separated from HHS at the close of business on July 14, 2025," said a copy of the notice obtained by the Washington Post. "Thank you for your service to the American people."

Not all of the intended 10,000 ousters are taking place this week.

Some jobs are temporarily protected owing to DuBose's ruling in New York v. Kennedy, which reportedly shields employees at the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention; the National Center for Environmental Health; theDivision of Reproductive Health; the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; the Office on Smoking and Health; the National Center for Birth Defects and Development Disabilities; the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products; the Office of Head Start; and the Division of Data and Technical Analysis.

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

Career feds act like they’re the ones running the country



It shouldn’t have to be said, but here we are: No, it is not normal for federal employees — whether career staff, political appointees, or otherwise — to defy the direction of the president of the United States.

It doesn’t matter which party is in power. It doesn’t matter if you disagree with the president on a certain policy. Short of a murderous dictatorship or truly Constitution-threatening administration (and regardless of what they say on Bluesky, this isn’t that), the powers of the executive branch are vested in a president. All federal employees work for the president and have a duty to the American people to see their will enacted through each new administration.

Those who are fearful of losing their coveted and protected government jobs are gnashing their teeth at the sight of real accountability.

You wouldn’t know it, however, watching the second Trump administration.

Amid the streamlining of the federal government, many federal employees have taken aim at Trump’s policies mandated by the American people. Some may actually be motivated by their understanding of the Constitution or their love of country. But given the years of malfeasance in the Beltway, few deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Most are federal employees looking to save their comfortable jobs and pampered skin. These employees are so entrenched that they believe they are entitled to their jobs on the taxpayers’ dime — with one recently going as far as to claim that the Trump administration shows “disrespect” to federal employees.

Entitlement runs deep

Their resistance goes beyond Trump-era deregulation. Many of these same employees continue to complain about returning to the office after COVID-era stay-at-home orders — something the private sector largely resumed years ago. They claim that going back to their federal workplace is an “arbitrary punishment.”

Worse, the corporate left-wing media is attempting to spin the lack of resources at these bloated offices on the Trump administration, as if the previous president hadn’t allowed wanton remote work.

At the center of this bureaucratic backlash is President Trump’s push to reinstate Schedule F — a policy that would reclassify certain federal employees to make them more accountable to the executive by placing them more directly under the president’s purview.

Naturally, the federal employees ringing alarm bells about this policy are the same ones who want to retain the litany of job protections not afforded to people in the private sector. Redesignating certain staff as Schedule F employees ensures that those working in the government aren’t phoning it in and collecting a paycheck for decades on end.

RELATED: When bureaucrats rule, even red states go woke

cmannphoto via iStock/Getty Images

This isn’t a new problem. Both Trump administrations have faced internal resistance from the civil service. But so did the Biden administration. Though Joe Biden didn’t see nearly as much resistance as Trump, the scenarios were just as egregious.

Arguably the most high-profile issue that spurred federal workers to buck Biden was Israel’s war against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas after the deadly anti-Semitic attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023. Some federal employees didn’t just protest the Biden administration’s stance on Israel’s war outside the White House; they staged a walkout in support of the war-fighting Islamic terrorists who hate America. A U.S. airman even immolated himself in protest.

These instances underscore a significant problem facing the federal government: federal employees who believe themselves both above the policies of the presidents they serve and more knowledgeable than the American people who decide our leadership.

It doesn’t matter which party or president is in power — those who are fearful of losing their coveted and protected government jobs are gnashing their teeth at the sight of real accountability.

When bureaucrats act like they’re above democratic accountability, they not only weaken presidential authority, but they also jeopardize the nation’s credibility on the world stage. In doing so, they erode the trust Americans place in their government.

While it’s imperative that federal workers speak out in the face of actual constitutional danger from any administration that seeks to upend our nation, the actions undertaken by federal employees in the current and previous administrations severely run the risk of the American people viewing all federal workers as boys and girls who cry wolf.

Perhaps some of these individual revolts are emotional reactions to perceived injustices or policy blunders. It’s tempting to see a pattern in their occurrences and the media lionization of the malcontents. But wisdom says never to attribute to malice what you can to incompetence.

State Department finally gets to trim the bureaucratic fat — and Rubio's going the distance



Big changes are coming to the U.S. State Department that are sure to eclipse the significance of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's shuttering of the rebranded Global Engagement Center and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Feb. 11 directing agency heads to "promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force" with the ultimate aim of "eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity."

A gang of labor unions, leftist NGOs, and local governments sued to prevent the administration from executing mass layoffs at the department where 93% of all employee political contributions in the 2019-2020 election cycle went to Democratic Party candidates or political action committees.

A Clinton judge, evidently swayed by the liberals' claim that the "president does not possess authority to reorganize, downsize, or otherwise transform the agencies of the federal government, unless and until Congress authorizes such action," blocked Trump's order.

The case, Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, went before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 8-1 in the administration's favor, pausing U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston's injunction.

Now, with the high court's blessing, the State Department is sending well over 1,300 employees packing.

RELATED: Deep-staters threaten to use color revolution tactics against Trump admin: Report

Photo by Russian FM Press Service/Anadolu via Getty Images

In a letter to employees obtained by RealClearPolitics Thursday evening, Michael Rigas, deputy secretary of state for management and resources, said that the department was "communicating to individuals affected by the reduction in force" and that once notifications have taken place, "the Department will enter the final stage of its reorganization and focus its attention on delivering results-driven diplomacy."

'It's what all of us want.'

Rigas noted that the objective of the house-cleaning, announced by Rubio in April, was clear from the start: "Focus resources on policy priorities and eliminate redundant functions, empowering our people while increasing accountability."

State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce echoed Rigas' suggestion, telling reporters Thursday, "This is about making sure that the State Department is able to operate in a manner that makes it relevant and effective. That is what the American people want. It's what all of us want. And in this dynamic, that’s exactly what we’re achieving."

Documents detailing the department's reorganization plan shared with Congress and obtained by Government Executive in May, indicated that pink slips would go to:

  • 198 employees at the Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment division;
  • 386 employees at the Foreign Assistance and Humanitarian Affairs division;
  • 897 at the Management division;
  • 112 at the Political Affairs division;
  • 88 at the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs;
  • 51 employees in Rubio's office; and
  • 141 employees in the Arms Control and International Security division.

The documents indicated thousands more were leaving voluntarily.

The plans to Congress reportedly indicated that more than 300 of the department's 734 bureaus and offices would be axed, streamlined, or merged.

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

White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told Blaze News, "Under President Trump's leadership, all agencies are being streamlined to ensure more efficient services for the American people. Bloated operations often result in duplicative or even contradictory foreign policy. By reorganizing the Department of State, Secretary Rubio is ensuring that all actions align with the America First agenda that people voted for."

Simon Hankinson, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Border Security and Immigration Center, suggested earlier this year that while "painful in places," the State Department's restructuring plan "seems achievable without blunting the effectiveness of American foreign policy."

'Leadership requires hard choices.'

When asked about the layoffs underway and whether the department will retain its effectiveness, Hankinson — who worked for State for over two decades — told Blaze News, "If reports of the scope of the RIF are accurate, I don't think they will undermine the State Department's core mission of carrying out U.S. foreign policy, providing citizen services and passports, issuing visas, and all the department does for Americans."

RELATED: 'Nothing to be proud of': State Department spits on USAID's grave following Bono, Obama eulogies

Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images

"How this ends up depends on the tactics — the how, who, and where," said Hankinson. "If they make the right choices to cut offices whose work can be done elsewhere with no loss, but retain the staff with the highest performance, skills, and specialized knowledge, this will save money at no loss to efficiency. The worst result for the American taxpayer would be to see expensive RIFs followed a few years later by expensive new hires to perform vital functions."

The follow-through on these layoffs are a testament to the Trump administration's willingness to make tough decisions, suggested Hankinson, who noted that throughout his 23-year career as a foreign service officer at State, he "never once met an ambassador or senior official who wanted to shrink their staff; they only ever wanted more people and resources."

"Every study or report about State I've read in the last 10 years — with the exception of my own last year —recommends more staff and money, yet they never say where the money comes from," continued Hankinson. "They just say it's a 'priority.' But so is everything. Leadership requires hard choices. The last time we saw cuts to federal agencies on this scale was in the Clinton administration, and since then, the federal budget and entitlements have slowly grown."

Hankinson noted that with spiraling federal debt, "Every part of our government is going to have to be reduced, reorganized, and made more efficient, sooner or later."

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

Appeals court delivers Trump a 'huge victory' in VOA layoffs suit, sets stage for additional wins



The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered the Trump administration a "huge victory" on Saturday, blocking the order of a lesser court that required the reinstatement of over 1,000 Voice of America employees.

Kari Lake, senior adviser for the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which supervises Voice of America, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and a handful of other state-funded outfits including Radio Free Europe, called the ruling a "BIG WIN in our legal cases at USAGM & Voice of America. Huge victory for President Trump and Article II."

"Turns out the District Court judge will not be able to manage the agency as he seemed to want to," added Lake.

The appeals court's 2-1 ruling, which saw Trump-appointed Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao pitted against dissenting Obama-appointed Judge Cornelia Pillard, held that "the government is likely to succeed on the merits because the district court likely lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enjoin USAGM's personnel actions and to compel the agency to restore RFA's and MBN's FY 2025 grants."

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 14 aimed at reducing various "unnecessary" elements of the federal bureaucracy "to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law." Among the entities targeted was the USAGM.

'Ensure that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda.'

In a corresponding fact sheet, the White House shared links to articles criticizing the quality and neutrality of the state media outfit's output, as well as a link to a write-up of the American Accountability Foundation's 2022 lawsuit alleging that VOA had "been infiltrated by anti-American, pro-Islamic state interests."

Blaze News previously reported that pursuant to the president's executive order, approximately 1,300 VOA journalists and other employees were placed on administrative leave, and funding was suspended to VOA's sister networks.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled against the administration on April 22, noting that its stated efforts to "ensure that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda" were "arbitrary and capricious" and "likely in direct violation of numerous federal laws," including the VOA's congressionally established charter in the International Broadcasting Act.

Lamberth ordered the administration to "take all necessary steps to return USAGM employees and contractors to their status" prior to Trump's March 14 EO; to restore VOA programming; and to restore fiscal year 2025 grants to Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. He also demanded that the administration provide him with monthly status reports "apprising the Court of the status of the defendants' compliance with this Order."

'The injunction threatens its prerogative to "speak with one voice" on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs.'

The appeals court said in its Saturday ruling that Lamberth "likely lacked jurisdiction over the USAGM's personnel decisions" as federal employees may not use the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge agency employee actions.

"Congress has instead established comprehensive statutory schemes for adjudicating employment disputes with the federal government," noted the court.

While the dissenting Obama judge on the appeals court expressed doubt that Congress' chosen administrative methods could properly process agency-wide claims for over 1,000 employees, the majority noted that "administrative agencies are not powerless to issue broad-reaching relief in large-scale personnel matters."

The court said that Lamberth similarly lacked jurisdiction to restore Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks' grants for fiscal year 2025.

"If a claim against the United States is contractual 'at its essence,' district courts have no power to resolve it," wrote the majority. That authority belongs to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The appeals court also recognized that Lamberth's order requiring the restoration of all employees and contractors is a harmful "intrusion" that implicates the Trump administration's foreign-affairs authority since USAGM is responsible for presenting the views of the government and supporting U.S. foreign policy.

"By depriving the Executive Branch of control over the individuals involved in its international broadcasting, the injunction threatens its prerogative to 'speak with one voice' on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs," said the court.

Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent at the Federalist, noted that this "conclusion should have wide-spread ramifications" because many of the legal challenges brought against the Trump administration "are about employment decisions which CONGRESS said are NOT for district courts to decide."

The appeals court's decision landed a day after the Department of Justice notified lawyers representing VOA workers that they could return to work this week.

In a letter obtained by The Hill sent to VOA staffers' lawyers, the DOJ wrote, "USAGM currently expects staff to begin to return to the office next week, as security, building space, and equipment issues require a phased return."

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

The real reason elites want to destroy Elon Musk



When protests erupt worldwide over an American staffing decision, it’s not outrage — it’s orchestration. And the people behind it don’t want you asking questions.

The recent wave of global protests against Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, defies logic. Demonstrators have gathered outside Tesla showrooms worldwide, setting cars on fire and destroying lithium batteries. But what exactly are they protesting?

The protests are not about environmental concerns but about control.

Policy decisions can spark domestic outrage in the United States, but why are people in Germany, Sweden, or Ireland suddenly mobilizing against Musk? He is not pushing for global war or implementing trade tariffs that would impact European consumers. His involvement in U.S. government affairs concerns federal budgeting waste, fraud, and abuse. Why would anyone overseas care about this?

Historically, large-scale protests have erupted over issues like nuclear weapons, war, and climate change. Yet, no precedent exists for international demonstrations aimed at a domestic U.S. policy decision — particularly one centered on budget efficiency. So who benefits from this manufactured outrage?

Green hypocrisy

Tesla revolutionized the electric vehicle industry, making sustainable transportation mainstream. Musk developed solar panels, battery storage, and charging infrastructure — technologies environmentalists have long championed. Yet now, the same groups that once hailed electric vehicles as essential to combating climate change are actively working to cripple Tesla.

How does burning Tesla vehicles and terrorizing EV owners advance the fight against climate change?

This contradiction reveals a deeper issue. If climate change truly presents an existential crisis, why would activists seek to dismantle a company leading the charge in clean energy? The only logical explanation is that the protests are not about environmental concerns but control.

Musk’s real ‘threat’

Elon Musk faced little controversy when he pioneered electric vehicles or launched reusable rockets. The backlash began when he became a vocal champion of free speech.

His purchase of Twitter, followed by revelations of government-backed censorship, changed how information moves through digital platforms. That shift marked the moment the outrage machine targeted him.

Opponents have resorted to labeling Musk a "fascist." But let’s examine this claim. Traditional fascism is defined by state control, forced conformity, and the suppression of dissent. Musk, on the other hand, advocates open dialogue, transparency, and reduced government interference. Calling him a fascist is not only inaccurate but also a deliberate attempt to stifle debate.

When people misuse the term "fascist," they dilute its meaning. Just as overusing the word "racist" has numbed the public to actual instances of racism, the indiscriminate application of "fascist" shields actual authoritarian behavior from scrutiny. This tactic is not about accurately describing Musk — it is about silencing him.

Who’s behind the protests?

Ordinary citizens do not spontaneously organize coordinated protests across multiple continents in response to a U.S. federal staffing decision. These demonstrations require financial backing, media support, and strategic messaging. So who benefits from damaging Tesla’s brand or silencing Musk?

We live in an era where perception is power. A viral video can ruin a reputation, and a well-crafted narrative can influence elections. If a movement can turn a climate hero into a villain simply for challenging an entrenched system, then it can manipulate almost any public discourse.

Before accepting any narrative at face value, we must ask critical questions: Do these protests help or harm the environment? Are they organic expressions of outrage, or are they carefully orchestrated? Is the term "fascist" being used to expose truth or to suppress dissent? Most importantly, are we sabotaging progress simply because we dislike one of the people leading it?

The manufactured outrage against Musk is not about policy; it is about power. And if we fail to recognize that, we risk allowing those who seek control to redefine reality itself.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

CNN Host Quickly Switches Topic After Scott Jennings Asks Panel To Name One Dem Who Is ‘More Popular’ Than Trump

'You guys keep trying to create this fantasy land'

Progressives’ ‘democracy’ is just a cover for unaccountable power



Every country is governed by an organized elite, and every ruling class relies on a narrative that justifies its authority. Political theorist Gaetano Mosca called this a political formula — a framework that defines the legitimacy of a government. Without a radical shift in this formula, a nation's people assume their leaders must operate within the existing governmental structure.

Americans expect to be governed as a republic, with a mixed constitution that heavily favors the input of the common man. While aspects of the narrative justifying government power have remained intact, the ruling elite have fundamentally altered how the state functions.

When Democrats claim Trump threatens 'our democracy,' they really mean he threatens their administrative state.

Technocratic bureaucracy now dominates every branch of government, replacing the will of the people with the judgment of so-called experts. Donald Trump has declared war on this bureaucracy — what many call the deep state — acknowledging the extent to which the federal government has been transformed. His stance has deeply unsettled his opponents.

The entrenched elite believed their new governing model was permanently enshrined. Yet to their shock, the power of America’s foundational principles still holds enough force to challenge the system they assumed was complete. Republican presidents have come and gone, but for the first time in years, the ruling class is paralyzed by the prospect of real change.

The U.S. Constitution establishes essential ground rules, but the Founding Fathers designed it with significant flexibility. While power is divided among three branches with built-in checks and balances, the dominance of each branch has shifted throughout history. This adaptability has allowed the nation to respond to crises without requiring a formal revolution.

This flexibility ensures continuity of governance during emergencies, but it also makes it difficult for the public to recognize when a more insidious shift occurs within the state’s structure.

Some trace the origins of the administrative state to Chester A. Arthur or Woodrow Wilson, but few deny its full emergence under Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR’s New Deal created a vast bureaucracy of experts tasked with modernizing and centralizing economic and political power. The Great Depression and World War II provided the perfect justification for this transformation, and Americans — grateful for an end to both crises — barely noticed how radically their form of government had changed.

FDR’s managerial revolution still haunts the United States. Today, the country operates less like a republic and more like a web of insular, unaccountable bureaucratic agencies.

Progressives are eager to dismantle the constitutional restraints on democracy, such as the Electoral College and the Senate, while shifting power away from elected representatives and into the hands of the administrative state. The left has worked hard to dominate public opinion through institutional control and wants to maintain a direct and unobstructed link between its bureaucratic machinery and the people it seeks to govern. To the left, the checks and balances of a mixed republican constitution are archaic and inconvenient. When Democrats claim Donald Trump’s presidency threatens “our democracy,” they really mean he threatens their administrative state.

Average Americans may struggle to pinpoint exactly when or how their government changed, but they recognize that something feels fundamentally different from what they were promised. Even if most citizens today have never lived under a truly representative republic, the founding narrative remains powerful enough for Americans to see it as their rightful system of government — and to demand its return.

Democrats may cry “constitutional crisis” as Trump removes corrupt officials and empowers Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to slash bureaucracy. But voters understand that this decisive exercise of executive power aligns far more with the original mixed republican system than anything the administrative state has imposed. Trump’s executive orders may threaten their “democracy,” but bold action is essential to restore the republic’s promises.

The left obscured its quiet revolution by replacing the constitutional republic with an unaccountable administrative state. Believing this transformation to be permanent, progressives even exported the model as a blueprint for governance across the Western world. In countries like the United Kingdom and Germany, technocratic governments now arrest their own citizens for criticizing failed policies, all in the name of defending “democracy.”

But in the United States, the republic’s legacy remains too strong to erase. Despite being ground zero for the technocratic revolution, America is also poised to lead its rejection.

Trump campaigned on Making America Great Again, and the key to fulfilling that promise is dismantling the bureaucratic behemoth that has strangled American ingenuity, productivity, and liberty. The republic’s narrative still beats in the heart of the nation, and by pledging to restore it, Trump has rallied his supporters to the difficult but necessary task of reversing the left’s technocratic revolution.

Trump supercharges DOGE with new executive order, sets stage for 'large-scale' layoffs



President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday setting the stage for "large-scale" layoffs and requiring federal agencies to further aid the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency with the governmental streamlining process, further empowering the Elon Musk-led outfit.

The order titled "Implementing the president's 'Department of Government Efficiency' workforce optimization initiative" builds on Trump's Jan. 20 order establishing the DOGE and requires federal agency heads to make "preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law, and to separate from Federal service temporary employees and re-employed annuitants working in areas that will likely be subject to the RIFs."

In the order, Trump tasked Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought with producing a master plan outlining how to reduce the federal bureaucracy through "efficiency improvements and attrition." The plan must require that each agency can hire only one employee for every four employees kicked to the curb — a ratio that won't apply to jobs related to immigration, public safety, or law enforcement.

Agency heads must in turn develop hiring plans in consultation with the DOGE team leader assigned to their agency, ensuring the strategic and timely placement of new career appointment hires as well as continued absences in positions the DOGE figures better left unmanned.

Trump further made clear that offices that "perform functions not mandated by statute or other law," especially those surviving offices that engage in DEI initiatives, should be prioritized for house cleaning.

'It's just something we've got to fix.'

Agency heads are permitted under the order to exempt any position deemed essential to meeting the nation's security or public safety responsibilities.

The stated purpose of the order is to get the ball rolling on a "critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy" in the interest of "eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity" and empowering the American people.

According to the Washington Post, by adhering to Trump's hiring-firing ratio and eliminating 25% of federal employees, the administration could cut the overall budget by roughly 1%.

Elon Musk, present for Trump's signing of the order, noted after interruptions from his young son, "You cannot have an autonomous federal bureaucracy. You have to have one that is responsive to the people. That is the whole point of a democracy."

"We had this unelected fourth unconstitutional branch of government, which is the bureaucracy, which has in a lot of ways currently more power than any elected representative," continued Musk. "It's just something we've got to fix."

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