The Trump administration on Thursday revoked a scientific finding that long has been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, the most aggressiv...

It's estimated to be the 45th time a Trump judge has ruled against the administration on mass immigration detention in the past year.

Text SIGN PWWSRN to 50409 — Department of Homeland Security funding expires Friday. At the same time, administration officials have reportedly declared that requiring ICE to obtain judicial warrants before entering private homes is a “non-starter.” The Fourth Amendment is not optional. It requires that warrants issue only upon probable cause, supported by oath, and particularly describing the place to be searched. That protection arose directly from colonial outrage over general warrants and unbounded searches. It is a foundational limit on executive power. If compliance with the Fourth Amendment is a “non-starter,” then unconditional funding must be as well. This is not theoretical. In Idaho, a recent federal raid resulted in the detention of more than 100 undocumented immigrants and the temporary detention of hundreds of U.S. citizens and lawful residents. Litigation is ongoing. Photographic evidence contradicted initial official denials about how minors were restrained. These are precisely the kinds of operations that demand strict constitutional guardrails. At the same time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi that certain immigrants may be detained without any opportunity for a bond hearing in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Those states contain a significant portion of the nation’s ICE detention facilities. While appellate review may follow, the decision is binding for now. Combined with billions already appropriated for detention expansion through 2029, this creates the real possibility of prolonged civil detention without individualized judicial oversight. Congress cannot finance a regime of warrantless home entries and indefinite detention. Any DHS funding bill must: 1. Require judicial warrants based on probable cause before ICE enters a private residence. 2. Guarantee prompt bond hearings or individualized custody review. 3. Mandate documented compliance with all federal court orders. 4. Require public reporting of detentions involving U.S. citizens or lawful residents. 5. Establish clear identification standards to prevent masked, unaccountable enforcement actions except in narrowly defined and justified circumstances. 6. Guarantee independent inspection access to all detention facilities, including privately operated centers. Further, Congress must include explicit clawback authority through 2029 allowing appropriated funds to be rescinded if DHS violates constitutional protections, ignores judicial directives, or expands detention capacity without statutory safeguards. Another clean continuing resolution would entrench the status quo. That is not compromise; it is abdication of Congress’s constitutional duty. The power of the purse exists precisely to prevent executive overreach. Security requires legitimacy. Enforcement requires due process. Funding without conditions would signal that constitutional compliance is negotiable. It is not. Stand firm. Condition funding. Include clawback authority. Do not finance practices that treat the Bill of Rights as optional.

Financial crimes squad investigate husband and wife in connection to alleged relationship with late sex offender

Text SIGN PQWHLO to 50409 — The possibility that President Donald Trump could grant clemency to Ghislaine Maxwell now presents an immediate and grave threat to justice in one of the most extensive child sex-trafficking conspiracies in modern history. Maxwell was not a peripheral figure. She was the central facilitator of Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal enterprise and is now the only remaining senior participant serving a lawful sentence. She is openly seeking clemency while signaling—through her attorney—that she would only “testify fully and honestly” if a presidential pardon were granted in advance. That is not cooperation. It is leverage. Maxwell has now made this condition explicit, refusing to answer a single congressional question about Epstein’s co-conspirators while demanding clemency beforehand. A presidential pardon under these circumstances would permanently foreclose accountability, incentivize perjury, and function as obstruction of justice by executive decree. Once clemency is granted, Maxwell would face no legal consequence for false testimony that shields powerful individuals from prosecution. Recent congressional review of the Epstein files has dramatically intensified these concerns. After personally viewing unredacted materials, Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, accused the Department of Justice of making “completely unnecessary” redactions that concealed the names of alleged abusers while exposing identifying details of victims. He warned that these actions may violate federal law and deter survivors from coming forward. Members who reviewed the files have further confirmed that they include discussions of victims as young as nine years old, even as the identities of men described as “likely incriminated” remain inexplicably shielded. This is not transparency; it is a distortion of justice that protects the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. The newly reviewed records also contradict President Trump’s public claims regarding his relationship with Epstein. Documents personally reviewed by members of Congress quote Trump as stating that Epstein was a guest at Mar-a-Lago and was never asked to leave—directly at odds with Trump’s repeated public assertions. This moment is not occurring in isolation. Democratic allies are responding very differently to the same revelations. In Norway, senior diplomats have resigned and now face criminal investigations for corruption and complicity tied to Epstein connections, with additional probes opened into other senior political figures. In the United Kingdom, authorities have indicated their willingness to assist law enforcement in ongoing inquiries related to Epstein’s ties to a former royal. These democracies are reopening cases, accepting institutional embarrassment, and insisting that proximity to power does not confer immunity. If the United States responds instead by granting executive clemency to the chief enabler of Epstein’s crimes, it will stand alone—not as a leader in justice, but as a cautionary example of how power protects itself. If Maxwell possesses information critical to prosecuting others, that testimony must be obtained through lawful means: under oath, under immunity agreements, subject to corroboration, and before any discussion of leniency. A pardon offered first would destroy the integrity of that process. I urge Congress to: • State unequivocally that a presidential pardon in this case would constitute an abuse of power. • Demand full, unredacted disclosure of the Epstein files to Congress. • Conduct immediate oversight hearings into DOJ redactions and prosecutorial interference. • Require sworn testimony from DOJ officials regarding redaction decisions that exposed victims while shielding alleged abusers. • Require disclosure of any communications between DOJ officials and Maxwell or her counsel concerning testimony, confinement conditions, or potential clemency. No one—especially those implicated in crimes against children—should be permitted to trade silence or fabricated exoneration for freedom. The American people understand what is at stake and expect Congress to defend the rule of law.

Last night’s thirteen-minute Super Bowl half-time show featuring Bad Bunny had more watchers than any other halftime show in history: an estimated 135 million watched live, while millions more have st...

Text SIGN PNQTHB to 50409 — As a constituent, I write to urge immediate Congressional action to stop the President’s escalating architectural interventions in Washington, D.C., which threaten the historic character, civic balance, and long-term stewardship of the Nation’s Capital. While the President exercises authority over federal projects, that authority has never been absolute when permanent alterations to Washington’s core monuments and sightlines are at stake. Unilateral, irreversible changes to the capital require Congressional intervention now. THE PRESIDENT IS PURSUING A MASSIVE TRIUMPHAL ARCH WITHOUT PUBLIC CONSENT Reporting confirms that President Trump is actively pursuing plans to construct an enormous triumphal arch - widely referred to as the “Arc de Trump” - near the National Mall and Arlington Memorial Bridge. Current proposals would make the structure roughly 250 feet (25 stories) tall, exceeding the height of the Lincoln Memorial and dramatically altering protected sightlines that have defined Washington for generations. Washington, D.C. is governed by strict federal height limits designed to preserve sightlines, proportionality, and the symbolic balance of the capital, with monumental exceptions historically used sparingly and only with broad public and Congressional consensus. Such a monument would impose a single political identity on shared national space and permanently distort the visual and symbolic balance of the capital. EXECUTIVE CONTROL IS BEING USED TO BYPASS HISTORIC REVIEW AND PUBLIC INPUT These plans are advancing through executive influence over federal land-use authorities, design review bodies, and preservation processes that were explicitly created to prevent unilateral action of this kind. By accelerating approvals and reshaping oversight, the President is sidelining expert review, public participation, and statutory safeguards designed to protect historic federal landscapes from politicized alteration. This is a process failure independent of any view on the project’s aesthetics. THIS ARCHITECTURAL AGENDA CREATES A DANGEROUS INSTITUTIONAL PRECEDENT The proposed arch is not an isolated decision. It reflects a governing approach that centralizes permanent architectural decisions in the executive branch, including large-scale alterations to White House grounds and an effort to privilege a narrow architectural vision across federal projects. The risk is institutional, not personal: once normalized, this authority would be inherited intact by every future President, regardless of party or restraint. CONGRESS MUST REASSERT ITS CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OVER THE NATION’S CAPITAL Congress has both the authority and the responsibility to intervene when presidential actions threaten the long-term integrity of Washington, D.C. Federal land use, monument construction, and preservation policy are not executive prerogatives alone. Congressional action here would not be interference, but fulfillment of the oversight role Congress itself designed to prevent precisely this category of irreversible change. I therefore urge Congress to immediately: (1) Suspend all approvals and funding related to the proposed triumphal arch. (2) Hold oversight hearings on the use of executive power in federal architectural decisions. (3) Reinforce statutory protections governing the National Mall and surrounding federal lands. (4) Reaffirm that major architectural interventions in Washington require transparent, lawful approval. Washington belongs to the American people, not to any one President. Congress must act now to defend that principle.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a temporary restraining order on Monday morning. Also: For paid subscribers, closing my tabs.

Text SIGN PFIWWD to 50409 — I am writing as a constituent deeply concerned about a coordinated federal campaign to intimidate election officials, override state authority, and restrict voting rights ahead of the 2026 elections. These threats are no longer theoretical. They are already unfolding. In late January, federal agents seized ballots and election materials from a county election office related to the 2020 presidential election—an election that had already been counted, audited, recounted, and fully litigated years ago. Constitutional and election law experts warned that the raid posed a serious danger to ballot custody, election worker independence, and public trust in state-administered elections. This action followed public statements by Donald Trump, who recently lamented that he had not seized state ballot boxes in 2020 and again falsely claimed the election was “rigged,” warning that prosecutions were coming. Shortly after the raid, Trump revived long-discredited conspiracy theories about foreign interference in U.S. elections—claims that have been rejected by courts, audits, and federal investigators. What makes this episode especially alarming is how it was carried out. The warrant did not originate from local federal prosecutors, but from Thomas Albus, a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney who was designated as a special assistant to the attorney general. That designation grants nationwide authority and appears to have been used to bypass career prosecutors and local U.S. attorneys—creating a politically loyal, roaming prosecutor empowered to intervene in election matters anywhere in the country. The danger going forward is obvious. While seizing old ballots is troubling enough, the same authority could be used to interfere with active elections—including during or immediately after Election Day in 2026—by seizing ballots, tabulators, voting machines, or other critical election infrastructure. States and counties have limited equipment and resources; even temporary disruption could alter outcomes or sow chaos. At the same time, Congress is advancing the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act, following the earlier SAVE Act. These bills would federalize election administration and override state election laws by imposing proof-of-citizenship and strict photo ID requirements that millions of eligible voters do not possess, discarding valid mail-in ballots, banning universal vote-by-mail systems, and prohibiting ranked-choice voting in federal elections. Election fraud remains vanishingly rare. Mass disenfranchisement is not. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has demanded unredacted voter files from all 50 states and has sued numerous states for refusing to comply. These files contain highly sensitive personal data. Without them, federal authorities lack a key tool for voter suppression and election interference. With them, the risks to voters and election integrity grow dramatically. These actions form a single, dangerous pattern: federal intimidation of election officials, centralization of prosecutorial power, conspiracy-driven investigations, and legislation designed to suppress turnout and override state authority. This is not election security. It is an assault on democratic self-government. Recent elections—including unexpected outcomes in districts long considered politically “safe”—have shown that voters are engaged and capable of rejecting extremism. That reality appears to be driving efforts to interfere with how votes are cast, counted, and certified. I urge you to act now by: • Publicly affirming our State’s constitutional authority to administer elections free from federal intimidation. • Opposing the MEGA Act, the SAVE Act, and any federal legislation that overrides state election law or disenfranchises voters. • Resisting unlawful demands for unredacted voter data. • Preparing legally and operationally to protect ballot custody, voting equipment, and election workers during the 2026 elections. • Coordinating with other states to present a unified response to federal election interference. The Constitution assigns the administration of elections to the states—not to partisan federal actors pursuing conspiracy theories or political advantage. The threat is real, it is active, and it requires leadership now.