The Department of Justice rejected a judge's ultimatum on the "anti-weaponization fund" and called it a breach of the separation of powers doctrine.
President Donald Trump agreed to drop a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in exchange for the formation of a $1.8 billion fund to compensate the victims of weaponization of government in previous administrations.
'Judges do not get to insert themselves into the department's routine settlement authority.'
In response to a lawsuit over the fund, the government argued that the point was moot after Attorney General Todd Blanche testified to Congress that the fund was dead.
"We are not moving forward with the fund. Period," Blanche said clearly.
However, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema cited statements from the president supporting the fund and Blanche's reluctance to provide a written guarantee as evidence that the administration still sought to establish it.
Brinkema then gave the government a week to provide declarations under penalty of perjury from Blanche as well as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. She warned that if they failed to do so, she would allow a lawsuit against the government to proceed.
On Friday, the DOJ responded that the statements were unnecessary and constituted a "serious" violation of the separation of powers among the branches of government.
"It is telling that even after the federal court gave them a week, the acting attorney general and other senior administration officials continue to refuse to say under oath that the Slush Fund is dead and won't operate in the future," Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said.
The organization is representing the plaintiffs, a coalition that includes a former federal prosecutor and two nonprofits.
"Nor have they provided any information under oath about their compliance with the court's prior directives," Perryman added.
A spokesperson for the DOJ told the Washington Examiner that the judge was improperly inserting herself into the lawsuit settlement.
RELATED: Senate Republicans defeat standoff to pass BILLIONS in ICE funding — Democrats implode with outrage
"The DOJ has already twice filed in court that the fund isn't moving ahead, coupled with Blanche's repeated testimony before Congress that the fund isn't moving forward," the spokesperson said.
"In essence, the judge's demand for declarations was an attempt to require her to personally sign-off on any and all future settlements, separate and apart from the Fund, that the department may make," the spokesperson added. "Judges do not get to insert themselves into the department's routine settlement authority."
Democrats and some Republicans have voiced opposition to the fund based on the critique that it would be a slush fund to reward the president's supporters and allies.
Brinkema was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton in 1993.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
In a truly free nation, 10 things must be present, says Glenn Beck: “rule of law,” “free, fair, and regular elections,” “protection of individual rights,” “separation of powers,” “independent judiciary,” “a free press and open information,” “civilian control of the military,” “protection of minority rights,” “economic freedom and property rights,” and “a culture that values freedom.”
When weighed against these standards, Canada, he argues, is the opposite of free.
To prove his case, he lists 20 recent examples of how Canada has abandoned these core pillars of freedom.
In 2021, Canadian Parliament learned that a top-security lab scientist had sent live Ebola samples to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and worked with the Chinese military on biological weapons research. Parliament demanded the documents four times, but the Liberal Party repeatedly blocked access, sued to prevent disclosure, delayed, and even triggered a snap election to shut down the probe.
“That's rule of law being violated and separation of powers being violated,” says Glenn.
Three years after the lab scandal, the auditor general uncovered roughly $400 million in clear corruption. The Liberals in Parliament immediately shut down further investigation and discussion.
“Accountability, independent oversight — violated,” Glenn notes.
Following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation in 2025, a tiny elite group (just 0.33% of Canadians) installed Mark Carney as prime minister. During this period, the House of Commons suspended operations for eight months, leaving the country ruled entirely by executive orders with zero parliamentary debate, votes, or oversight.
“No oversight, no debate, no votes. Where's your representation? Separation of powers? That's not a democracy. That's ruled by fiat,” Glenn warns.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service confirmed that China interfered in both the 2019 and 2021 federal elections by financially backing 11 candidates. Trudeau was informed but took no action.
“That's free and fair elections out the window,” he states.
A Liberal member of Parliament publicly encouraged people to claim a Chinese Communist Party bounty placed on a Conservative candidate. No charges or consequences followed.
“Equal application of the law — violated,” says Glenn.
In subsequent voting, 121 mail-in ballots were left uncounted, Elections Canada printed incorrect postal codes on envelopes (creating a 327-vote swing favoring the Liberals in one riding), and data errors distorted results. Additionally, five MPs switched to the Liberal Party within five months, conveniently giving the Liberals a two-seat majority.
“Democracy by design, or is it democracy by manipulation?” he asks.
The government invoked the Emergencies Act against the 2022 Freedom Convoy truckers’ protest. They froze bank accounts of participants and their financial supporters nationwide. Two federal courts, including the Court of Appeal, unanimously ruled the action unjustified, illegal, and a direct breach of charter rights. The government continues to appeal despite the court rulings.
“That's a silencing of free speech and assembly and property rights” as well as an abandonment of “judicial authority and rule of law,” Glenn emphasizes.
Bill C-18 (Online News Act) required Google and Meta to pay Canadian news outlets for simply linking to their content. Meta responded by blocking all news on Facebook and Instagram for Canadian users. This gave the government indirect control over what information reaches the public.
“Free press, information flow — controlled,” he asserts.
Bill C-11 (Online Streaming Act) placed platforms like Netflix, YouTube, and Spotify under federal regulation, imposing Canadian content quotas and DEI requirements. This allows the state to influence what people watch, listen to, and create.
“That's [violating] speech” and “cultural expression influenced by the state,” Glenn declares.
The government maintained the carbon tax even though two-thirds of Canadians opposed further increases. They removed the visible consumer tax but quietly kept hidden regulations and industrial carbon taxes that raised fuel prices. They also attempted an outright 100% electric vehicle sales mandate by 2035 before switching to indirect emissions rules that achieve the same goal.
“Transparency? There's none there,” he observes.
“Property rights? Optional.”
Ontario’s Bill 212 gives the provincial government power to fast-track highway projects, override local bylaws, and quickly remove property owners from their land.
“No property rights,” Glenn reiterates.
In Waterloo, authorities used confidential NDAs and threats of forced expropriation to seize 770 acres of prime farmland for an undisclosed “mega site.” Local farmers only learned about it after the deal was done.
Glenn calls it yet another violation of property rights.
In New Brunswick, a judge deliberately shortened a convicted criminal’s sentence to prevent his deportation, prioritizing the man’s skills over proper enforcement of immigration law.
It’s a clear violation of “equal justice,” he argues.
Toronto city council approved government-operated grocery stores that would avoid paying the same taxes as private businesses, allowing them to undercut regular competitors.
“Fair market violation,” Glenn notes.
In rural New Brunswick, forced municipal mergers led to sudden property tax increases of 50% to 60% on homeowners.
British Columbia is shifting toward a permission-based economy where residents must obtain government approval for routine activities (such as selling eggs or offering riding lessons) or face fines up to $50,000 per day.
“Economic freedom? Gone,” Glenn concludes.
The government banned approximately 2,500 types of firearms previously owned legally. The buyback program was labeled “voluntary,” but citizens were warned they could face jail time for keeping their lawfully purchased guns past the deadline.
“[Are] there any property rights?” he asks.
Medical Assistance in Dying was introduced in 2016, and safeguards were removed in 2021. By 2024, over 22,500 people requested it and nearly 16,500 received it — accounting for 5.1% of all deaths that year. Since legalization, more than 76,000 Canadians have died through the program. It is now the fourth leading cause of death among adults and is increasingly offered for treatable conditions like back pain or mental health issues, while patients wait an average of 28 weeks for regular medical care.
“When the state controls your health care and offers death as a solution to its own failures, you're no longer a citizen. You're a cost center,” Glenn warns.
The “Combating Hate” bill (C-9) is advancing in Parliament. It introduces vague new criminal penalties for “hate” that could potentially outlaw religious beliefs, peaceful protests, and political dissent.
“There's no freedom of speech there,” he stresses.
A former Google executive proposed a $500,000 “exit tax” on educated Canadians who choose to leave the country, effectively charging people for the right to emigrate.
“Isn’t that a Berlin wall of sorts?” asks Glenn.
All considered, Canada is no longer a free nation; and it’s no democracy either. “It's a managed oligarchy with democratic trappings,” he warns.
And if America isn’t careful, she will fall into the same dystopia.
“Now recognize America, this is your future,” says Glenn. “We are already letting unelected bureaucrats and activists and judges rewrite the rules.”
“If we allow and tolerate foreign interference and media capture; if we accept that the government can freeze your bank account for protesting, seize your farm for progress; if we trade liberty for equity, safety, and Canadian content, we're going to wake up in the morning in exactly the same place.”
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.
Democrat Rep. Susie Lee of Nevada took to social media earlier this week to post an ill-tempered tirade filled with profanity.
Lee let out a flurry of F-words in response to an article detailing President Donald Trump's plans to attend the Supreme Court's oral arguments on a landmark birthright citizenship case. Notably, Lee's profile banner on X brands her as "America' #1 Most Bipartisan Member of Congress."
'Clearly my language touched a nerve.'
"So f**king f**ked up," Lee said in a now-deleted post with a timestamp of 1:03 a.m. Wednesday. "I'll pray they f**k him to his face. Sorry, I say f**k a lot these days."
Rather than apologizing for her low impulse control, Lee doubled down and defended her incoherent rant, claiming Trump has violated the Constitution and its separation of powers.
RELATED: SCOTUS asks pointed questions as fate of Trump's birthright citizenship order hangs in the balance
"Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers," Lee said in a post later that morning. "I took an oath to protect and defend it."
Administration officials and allies of the president mocked Lee's lack of professionalism, insinuating she has a drinking problem that contributed to her lack of online inhibition.
Brandon Herrera, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, piled on to the ratio on Lee's childish follow-up post.
"I’m gonna need you to take an oath to stop swearing until you get good at it," Herrera said in a post on X. "Currently you sound like a 9 year old trying to impress the older kids."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
You’re the son of an immigrant. How could you support ICE?
Someone recently asked me this question. This same person also felt that I should be supporting the No Kings protest. It showed me how effective the Democratic Party has been at framing these issues to Democrats' advantage.
It is naïve to think that those who are willing to skip the process to come here illegally will automatically follow the laws once they arrive.
I lovingly and jokingly say my mother is a fresh-off-the-boat immigrant. She met my father in the Philippines during the Vietnam War. They fell in love and got married in the United States.
She grew up in abject poverty and had an idealistic view of the United States while growing up. Her country, the Philippines, was liberated by the United States twice: once in the late 1800s from Spanish colonial rule, and again during World War II from imperial Japanese rule.
She has more pride in being American than almost any other American I know.
She understands that the United States offers more than any other country in the world. It is something that the children and grandchildren of immigrants often forget. Thankfully, her children didn’t. She supports ICE and President Trump, and I think I can explain why.
For legal immigrants, the rule of law is incredibly important. Many of them come here for the simple reason that the rule of law in their countries broke down. Money misspent, officials and law enforcement taking open bribes, and government tyranny are some of the many reasons an immigrant would decide to come here.
Others in her family followed my mother’s journey, but they followed the legal process. Some had to wait years before coming. To them, seeing someone skip the process, skip the interviews, and skip the sponsorship requirements to come here while others they know are still patiently waiting is an insult.
ICE prioritizes removing convicted criminals, gang members, and repeat offenders. This is common-sense protection for our communities and families. It is naïve to think that those who are willing to skip the process to come here illegally will automatically follow the laws once they arrive.
Not everyone in the world likes us. Some openly call for our death and destruction. Some are motivated to hate by their religion, some by strict adherence to an economic or social ideology.
Immigrants can understand the importance of examining those who wish to live here, for those may bring the evils they hoped to escape.
Illegal immigration places downward pressure on wages. Many legal immigrants take jobs in sectors such as construction, hospitality, and caregiving. Enforcement of immigration laws helps those who came here legally and comply with our laws to earn a fair wage.
What about the costs of housing and health? If you know the basic economics of supply and demand, you understand the negative impact illegal immigration can have.
Legal immigrants also understand that illegal immigration brings bad actors who can negatively taint the positives of immigration and turn a populace against those who followed our process.
RELATED: Memo to Trump: Stop negotiating and ramp up deportations
Unfortunately, failing to enforce immigration laws leads to the bias of lumping all immigrants in the illegal category. Recent immigrants value the long-term viability of the American dream. Many feel a duty to support the laws that made their success possible. For them, supporting ICE is a natural and easy thing to do.
For the same reasons, supporting the No Kings protests is silly. Let’s start with the obvious: We don’t live under a king, and Trump was democratically elected. The executive branch is constitutional, and checks and balances still exist. Even though an immigrant and the son of an immigrant may disagree with these No Kings protests, we understand that people are allowed to protest, and the fact that protests are allowed is incredibly important. We did not see anyone stopping them from speaking out or deplatforming them on social media.
Perhaps we should be unhappy with the president’s foreign policy decisions? I think I’ll defer to the majority of the Venezuelans and Iranians living here. I can also not overlook the checkered and violent tyrannical past of a theocratic government that openly chants “Death to America.”
The United State has elections, and these protesters might be surprised at the results. Their protests reminded many immigrants of the importance of voting.
The independence of the Federal Reserve System has become a major source of public controversy. As political leaders signal dissatisfaction with monetary policy, officials and commentators rush to defend the central bank’s insulation from democratic pressure. We are told, as if it were self-evident, that central bank independence is a pillar of sound economic governance.
But this confidence is misplaced. The economic case for central bank independence is far weaker than its defenders suggest. And the constitutional case is weaker still.
Officials entrusted with such consequential authority must ultimately answer to elected leadership.
Start with economics. The standard argument is that independent central banks deliver low and stable inflation because they are insulated from short-term political incentives. Elected officials, facing electoral pressures, might be tempted to juice the economy with artificially loose monetary policy. By contrast, independent technocrats can take the long view.
Early empirical studies did show that countries with independent central banks experienced lower inflation. Yet more recent research has cast doubt on this relationship. The correlation is sensitive to different samples and methods. In many cases, the supposed benefits of independence disappear entirely.
A more plausible explanation has emerged. Countries that enjoy low and stable inflation share deeper institutional characteristics: respect for the rule of law, stable political systems, and credible commitments to property rights. These are the real foundations of sound money. Central bank independence accompanies these basic governance norms, but its stand-alone effect is debatable.
This matters for a free-enterprise economy. Monetary policy is not a neutral technocratic exercise. Interest rates are prices: the price of time, risk, and capital. When insulated officials tinker with those prices at their discretion, the result is distorted market signals. Cheap credit can mislead investors, encourage unsustainable projects, and redistribute wealth in opaque ways. Independence does not eliminate politics. It simply hides politics behind a veil of expertise.
If the economic case for independence is overstated, the constitutional case is entirely bunk. The Constitution is clear: Congress holds the power “to coin Money” and “regulate the Value thereof.” Monetary authority, like all legislative power, originates with the people’s representatives. Congress may delegate certain functions to administrative bodies, including by creating a central bank. But delegation is not abdication.
Those who exercise delegated authority remain accountable to the laws Congress passes and, ultimately, to the chief executive charged with enforcing them.
Yet the modern Fed operates as if our constitutional framework were irrelevant. Its leaders enjoy significant protection from removal. Its decisions (targeting interest rates, allocating credit, regulating banks, etc.) have sweeping consequences for the entire economy. If this does not constitute the exercise of executive power, it is hard to say what does.
The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that administrative agencies cannot be insulated from presidential oversight simply because they possess technical expertise. The separation of powers does not yield to convenience, nor to the promise of better policy outcomes. Yet when it comes to the Federal Reserve, the court has signaled a willingness to tolerate precisely such insulation — a “special case” for the most powerful economic institution in the country.
This exception is indefensible. Appeals to history or prudence, however well grounded, are not constitutional arguments. An agency that wields executive power must answer to the chief executive. Concerns about how that works in practice does not justify ignoring the Constitution.
The truth is that central bank independence persists not because it is firmly grounded in law or economics, but because the alternative unsettles us. We worry, not without reason, that elected officials might misuse monetary policy for short-term gain.
But the Constitution does not permit us to resolve that fear by concentrating vast economic power in the hands of unaccountable experts. A free and self-governing people must confront the difficult task of designing institutions that combine competence with accountability.
RELATED: If Congress can’t oversee the FBI, who can?
That begins with Congress. There are several legislative reforms that can restore the rule of law to monetary policy. First, lawmakers should narrow the Federal Reserve’s mandate to a single, clear objective — price stability — rather than the vague and conflicting goals it currently pursues. A simpler mandate would make it easier to evaluate performance and hold policymakers responsible when they fail.
Second, Congress should revisit the legal protections that shield senior Fed officials from removal. Freedom of judgment is one thing; freedom from oversight is another. Officials entrusted with such consequential authority must ultimately answer to elected leadership. Legislators ought to make it easier to fire central bankers.
Finally, the president should take a more active role in ensuring that the Fed operates within its statutory and constitutional bounds. This does not mean dictating day-to-day interest rate decisions. Instead, it means recognizing that monetary policy, like all exercises of government power, must remain subject to democratic control.
President Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed chairman is a good start. The two must work together to restore the Fed’s ordinary day-to-day operations, something missing since the 2007-08 financial crisis.
Economic stability is obviously desirable. But we cannot purchase it at the cost of self-government. Republican principles require officials to be answerable to the people. If we are serious about preserving the constitutional order and free enterprise, we must abandon the comforting myths of central bank independence and restore accountability to the Federal Reserve.
Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.
The Supreme Court was comfortable overturning an executive order, but if the White House and Congress passed legislation, it would be two branches against one.
Rogue judges are pushing America toward a constitutional crisis by forgoing their sworn duty to apply the law in an objective manner.
Americans in every state should recognize the compact for what it is: a coastal elite power grab masquerading as democracy.
Here are some of Justice Scalia's best moments in remembrance of the 10-year anniversary of his passing.
Forty-six House Republicans joined their Democrat colleagues on Wednesday in defeating a bill amendment that would have stripped funding from two activist judges and the D.C. federal courts. Proposed by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, as an amendment to an appropriations package considered by the House for the 2026 fiscal year, the measure sought to cut […]
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com