Thursday, May 8, 2025

DOGE Is Doing the Clean-Up Leftists Can’t Stand


In this allegorical scenario, Honey and Hank moved into a cozy home in a small community in New England 30 years ago.  The next day, their neighbor, Irene, brings over a hot, homemade casserole to welcome them to the neighborhood.

Within minutes, Honey and Irene “connect” in a phenomenon known as human chemistry.  They just seem to “get” each other.  And as their relationship evolves, they learn that they are on the same page on just about everything: raising kids, favorite foods, must-see TV programs, Mommy-and-Me classes, even the crocheting and knitting that their grandmothers taught them.  And each of them has three children, with two of them having the same name!

As luck would have it, their husbands also hit it off and have quite a lot in common, the biggest that both are on-the-road salesmen.

Over the years, the couples become so close that they vacation and celebrate birthdays and holidays together.  Honey and Irene even exchange house keys and list each other as emergency contacts on medical forms.

All good...for 30 years!

Uh-Oh...

Then, one day, Honey gets a phone call from her bank manager, Mr. Hervey, requesting that she and Hank come in for a sit-down.

“Of course,” Honey says, speculating with Hank that the investment they made with the bank’s money manager has either yielded a brilliant bonanza or — yikes — has gone bust.

When they sit down the next day with Mr. Hervey — whom they call Linc, short for Lincoln — they notice a decidedly serious look on his face.

“Look,” he says.  “We live in a small town where everyone knows everything about everyone else.  I know Irene and her husband Fred very well.  And I know how close you’ve been over all these years.  I even know that you exchanged house keys in case of an emergency.  And Honey, I know that you gave Irene the PIN to your bank account, again in case of an emergency.”

At this point, Honey and Hank are nonplussed, having no idea where Linc Hervey is going with this strange introduction.

“Well, I hate to tell you this,” he says, “but we just discovered that over the years — many, many years — Irene has been withdrawing money from your account — very cleverly, so you would never notice — but now it has added up to a small fortune.  A real fortune.”

When Mr. Hervey tells them the amount, they are both dumbstruck, speechless, almost out of breath.

Enter Politics

Both Hank and Fred, as mentioned, were businessmen, capitalists, conservatives.  At the same time, both men tolerated that their wives were liberals with do-gooder instincts to save the climate, save the whales, save humanity!  Both men had decided that it wasn’t worth arguing, because most other things in their lives were so harmonious.

But sitting in front of the bank manager, who had just informed him that his wife’s best friend was a colossal fraud, a thief, and worthy of a felony conviction, Hank immediately took out his iPhone and looked up the numbers of his lawyer and his local police department, with the intention of having Irene (and possibly her husband Fred, as a co-conspirator) served with papers and then arrested and, he hoped, indicted and imprisoned.

Honey, on the other hand, started screaming at the bank manager.  “How dare you accuse Irene of any wrongdoing?  You are on a witch hunt.  You have no proof!”

“Unfortunately, Honey, we have empirical proof,” Linc said, “all scrupulously documented on our computers, going back years, in fact decades.”

Skip to 2025

Is this scenario not exactly what Americans — and, for that matter, the entire world — have been witnessing in real time as Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) discover the malfeasance, fraud, and criminality of not the fictional housewife Irene, but the real live people who run our massive government institutions?  To name only a few, there are the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Pentagon, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).  All of these have been fleecing our country — with our tax dollars — not of millions or billions, but of trillions of dollars!

In fact, DOGE has been unearthing the deep corruption involving both Republicans and (mostly) Democrats and proving the maxim that to unearth criminal behavior, always, always, always follow the money!

We have learned that our elected officials have sent vast fortunes to terrorist groups with eye-popping millions upon millions of dollars.  And looky here:

Among other egregious examples of the kinds of waste, fraud, and abuse DOGE has been uncovering is that tens of millions of dead people are on our Social Security rolls, many of them children and people over 115 years old!  And look what DOGE found — that $4.7 trillion in payments from the Treasury Department were “almost impossible” to track.  That is trillion, with a T!

DOGE has also found that California, New York, and Massachusetts, three deep-blue states — surprise, surprise! — were responsible for over half of the fraudulent unemployment claims in the United States since 2020, again involving massive mountains of  money.

Enter the Pearl-Clutchers

OMG, bleat the perpetually sky-is-falling, glass-is-half-empty leftists.  This is illegitimate!  While, according to Victor Davis Hanson, Musk acts completely under executive authority.

Like Honey, they are shooting the messenger.  That is understandable.  After all, most of the criminality has been committed by the people they trusted, sent money to, voted for, based their entire belief systems on.  Talk about an existential threat!

But unlike Honey, if it were their own personal bank accounts that were robbed, you can be sure they would be squarely in Hank’s camp, going after the crooks with the intention of bringing them to justice.

They remind me of a child having a temper tantrum in Aisle 4 of a supermarket — flailing arms, copious tears, kicking and screaming, crashing the cans and breakable jars off the shelf, simply because Mommy didn’t buy those all-important Animal Crackers.  “Clean-up in Aisle 4” is then blared over the loudspeaker.

That is what DOGE is all about: cleaning up the monumental financial mess that our greedy and corrupt elected officials and government agencies have inflicted on all of us.

Here is a way to keep track of the immense savings — and criminality — DOGE is uncovering every day.  So far, literally billions — going on trillions — in fraud, waste and abuse.

May this grand effort to Make America Great — and financially solvent — Again continue unimpeded!



X22, And we Know, and more- May 8

 



Killing Democracy to Save 'Democracy'


Britain started arresting people for tweeting unapproved things, and France decided to arrest its leading opposition politician, so what happened in Germany was not a surprise. After all, Germans are the best at fascism. There, the establishment parties used the internal security apparatus to formally designate the AfD, which is an upstart populist party with a plurality of voter support, particularly by the young and by the eastern Germans, an extremist organization. This basically means it’s open season for the heirs to the Gestapo and Stasi; banning it completely is the next step. Already, AfD supporters are being fired from civil service jobs. I guess with Germans, the only thing that changes is the uniform. Actually, that goes for all Europeans. They paid lip service to the idea of normal people having a say in their own governance but never believed in it. It was all a lie and a scam, but the mask is coming off. The ruling class is offering Europeans the choice between capitulation and rebellion.

Now, let’s not get too uppity here in America because our own garbage establishment would love to do the same thing. Its obstacles are that it’s so dumb and that Americans are not yet a nation of low-T femboys; we also pack heat. Our ruling class tried to frame Donald Trump after trying to bankrupt him, and when that didn’t work out, one establishment-friendly guy tried to murder him. The other guy who tried to murder him might be establishment-friendly, but we don’t know anything about him for some reason. The point is we have a Boomer generation ruling class that is desperately seeking to cling to power and is willing to do anything to keep it. Anything. This is a matter of life and death, and they’re willing to take lives and deal death to keep their power. As they keep losing, which they will – none of this is happening because they are intrinsically strong or competent – they will go further and further. More oppression. More tyranny. More bloodshed. It’s all worth it to them. Their power is all that matters.

This isn’t going to work out well. History teaches us what happens when you suppress the voice of people expressing legitimate grievances and boy, are people’s grievances ever legitimate. Economic dislocation. Anarcho-tyranny. A sanctioned invasion by Third World barbarians who rob, rape, and murder our citizens. Normal people have legit gripes, and they will be heard. It’s just a matter of what sound they make – voices or explosions.

Now, of course, this phenomenon isn’t just limited to these countries. We’ve seen similar antics in Brazil, Israel, Romania, and elsewhere. The entrenched establishment parties have no answer to the critiques of their gross incompetence, corruption, and arrogance, yet they are determined to hang onto power at all costs. Free speech and democratic norms – they don’t matter. Why, the situation is so extreme, the peril so perilous, that these concepts must give way. We must protect democracy by utterly destroying democracy. But of course, these people never actually believed in free speech or democracy or any of that stuff. They only believed in their own power. They dress themselves in the skin suits of the institutions they invaded, infested, and obliterated. We’re supposed to respect them because they were once respectable, but the problem for the establishment, the insurmountable challenge it faces, is that we normal people are neither blind nor stupid. We can see what’s happening, especially now that the regime media monopoly has been broken.

Of course, they tried to handle that, too. Remember “misinformation?” Oddly enough, the Venn diagram of “misinformation” and “Things the ruling class doesn’t want people to say or hear” is a single circle. Go back in time to 20 years ago and try to imagine somebody explaining to you that the government set up a specific organization to force media companies to suppress the points of view of the opposition. Sure, the regime media has always been left, but the idea of the U.S. government running an unapologetic censorship operation would’ve been insane. They would’ve summoned big dudes with butterfly nets to haul away anyone predicting that. And yet it was true. It happened. Our government did that, and other Western governments are even more open about it. The Germans are actively proud of their speech suppression, proving once and for all that Morgenthau was right.

This can’t continue forever. It’s not going to continue forever. This status quo is unsustainable. Our elite has failed. The ruling class is trash, and everybody knows it. However, alone among the countries around the globe, it’s only America that seems to be able to beat the largely Boomer-driven reactionary response. Canada famously just reelected the same people who destroyed their country over the last 10 years. That was Trump’s fault, of course – Canadians apparently have no agency. The Australians did something similar. France and Germany both had an establishment coalition made up of parties that should be at each other’s throats instead unite to stop the populists from being heard. Le Pen is headed to jail and AfD is likely to be banned. In Romania, the EU regime just canceled the election. And again, this is all going to be cheered on by regime media lackeys as necessary for the protection of democracy, “democracy” meaning their perpetual stranglehold on power.

So, how is it going to play out? Well, the Boomers of the West are either going to give up power like a normal generation would, or they are going to have power stripped from them. What’s not going to happen is that normal people around the world are going to shrug their shoulders and submit to serfdom. The right thing to do would be self-sacrifice and voluntary retirement, but of course, when have you ever seen the Boomers do anything that benefited anybody but the Boomers?

Well, it’s theoretically possible that we avoid chaos and convulsion, but every day it looks less and less likely that we will be able to. We’re facing greedy, stupid, and narcissistic people whose poor judgment has brought us to this place and whose poor judgment will tip us over the edge.

The big question is where the conflagration ignites. Is it going to start in Europe? Maybe the great revolt begins in some Third World country. Trump already represents a revolt in the United States; if he fails, the guy who comes next won’t be so nice. But the backlash is going to start somewhere. What can’t go on won’t go on, and this will not go on.



‘False Statements’ And ‘Manipulation’: House Report Shreds FBI For Downplaying Motives Of Congressional Baseball Shooter


the Bureau completely botched the investigation into this politically motivated attack, said Rep. Rick Crawford.



The FBI used “false statements, manipulation of known facts, and biased and butchered analysis” to claim that the man who shot Republicans while they were practicing baseball in 2017 had no connection to domestic terrorism, according to a new report.

“This report definitively shows the FBI completely mishandled the investigation into the Congressional baseball shooting of 2017 — ignoring crucial and obvious facts in order to sell a false narrative that the shooting was not politically motivated,” said Republican House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who was shot during the attack, in a press release. 

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released the report on May 6, explaining that the FBI “completely botched” its investigation into the 2017 shooting at a Republican congressional baseball practice. The assailant, who shot and injured Scalise and four others, was Democrat activist and Bernie Sanders volunteer James Hodgkinson, as The Federalist reported at the time. 

In its ensuing investigation, the FBI was quick to dismiss the shooter’s motives. As The Federalist’s Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway wrote, agents admitted the attacker was a radical leftist who hated Republicans, but suggested he had no particular target, was acting alone, and could have “spontaneous[ly]” launched the attack. They even went so far as to claim there was “no nexus to terrorism.”

The recent report suggests otherwise. It found that the FBI “failed to substantively interview the shooting victims and other eyewitnesses” and “failed to develop a comprehensive timeline of events.” Furthermore, its “case file was improperly classified, which may have assisted FBI in obfuscating substandard investigative efforts and analysis,” according to a House Intelligence release.

“FBI’s case file includes fact after fact indicating Hodgkinson was carrying out a plan to impact government policy or the political system by targeting Republicans. That was Hodgkinson’s motive, not simply to die by a cop’s bullet,” the report reads. “[O]ther evidence within the FBI case file supports a conclusion that Hodgkinson was a domestic terrorist.”

The report found that the shooter was a “radical, left-wing political extremist.” Hodgkinson was “upset” by Trump’s 2016 victory, and he participated in a concealed carry class. He “told friends and family they may not see him again,” left Illinois with guns, headed for Washington, D.C., “to protest,” “cased” the baseball field for two months, and then made sure that Republican congressmen were present before launching the attack.

While the FBI claimed he was “not a member of any extremist organization,” it turned a blind eye to his membership in a Facebook group called “Terminate The Republican Party,” which celebrated the shooting.

Investigators also found a list of six congressmen in Hodgkinson’s vehicle, which the FBI claimed “does not appear to be a ‘hit list.’” The list included notes to help identify each congressman.

Screenshot of the shooter’s list | House Intelligence Report

The FBI also failed to disclose the shooter’s notes until recently, a failure the report said caused “grave concern.” Hodgkinson said he “wanted to make a statement in my life before the end” and called to treat “elected congressmen of the republican party” with “despicable hatred.” 

The report found that the FBI determined the shooter’s motive was “suicide by cop” “before gathering and reviewing all evidence,” the case file makes clear this was a “premeditated assassination attempt on Republican congressmen,” and the FBI “withheld information” to debunk this narrative. The FBI also inexplicably changed its analysis of the motive from “suicide by cop” to “domestic violent extremism” in 2021.

Republican Rep. Rick Crawford, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, expressed concern over the FBI’s behavior.

“Unfortunately, this report confirms that under previous FBI leadership, the Bureau completely botched the investigation into this politically motivated attack which threatened the lives of numerous Republican Members of Congress, staff, and bystanders,” Crawford said in the release. “It is unacceptable and alarming that the FBI would approach any investigation within its purview with this complete disregard and lack of investigative integrity.”

Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, said that “it is clear why the FBI was holding this case file so close.”

“[T]he American people deserve a government that is accountable and transparent. Oversight of the intelligence community must ensure those in that community are held to the same standard,” Jackson said in the release. “I look forward to Director [Kash] Patel uncovering how political bias found its way into this high-profile case.”



🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Thom Tillis Says He's Watching Trump's Back By Nuking the Ed Martin Nomination


Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) wants everyone to know that he’s nuking Trump nominee Ed Martin because he’s trying to look after President Trump.  

“People don't believe me when I say I think I have a good relationship with President Trump but I still think I have a good relationship with President Trump,” Tillis said to CNN’s Manu Raju. “I'm trying to watch his back.”

The spin is laughable. 

Tillis’ opposition to Ed Martin to serve officially as the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, a post where he’s serving on an interim basis, all but assures the death of the nomination.  

In killing Ed Martin’s bid, Tillis will pave the way for notorious anti-Trump Judge James Boasberg to fill the vacancy. How exactly is that looking out for Trump, Thom?

The North Carolina Republican added that his opposition to Martin is over his support for the January 6 defendants because I guess no one deserves a competent defense, right? It’s also total bunk. We all know what happened on that day, Thom. No one cares—no one. And you being the guy who killed a Trump nominee isn’t going to earn you a legacy. It’s only going to accelerate voters kicking your can to the curb. You tried to kill Pete Hegseth’s nomination as secretary of defense. You’re trying to play Mr. Principles when we all know you have none.  

What the hell is wrong with you, man?  

I’ll let Larry pummel you too:   


Thom Tillis, the man who stopped Trump’s momentum because of…January 6.  


Swamp fever killed this man.  




No-Name Congresswoman Channels AOC/Jasmine Crockett, Goes on Wild '$20 Bill' Diatribe


Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

Here’s my theory: Congressional Democrats are getting jealous of the attention that Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) are getting for their unhinged antics, low-IQ takes, and theatrical displays of their lack of self-awareness. Crockett is arguably getting the best of AOC, making headlines for mocking Texas Gov. Abbott’s use of a wheelchair, threatening Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and regularly showing she has little to no understanding of the legal framework of this country.

That being said, AOC is no slouch either.

Enter Ohio Rep. Joyce Beatty, who must have been thinking to herself, "Why is no one pointing their camera at ME? How can I get an MSNBC mention?" Her answer, apparently, was to disrupt a House Financial Services Committee meeting Wednesday and disrupt the proceedings for a full two minutes while she gave her portrayal of Maxine Waters:

BEATTY: "In 2016, former Secretary Jack Lew announced that Harriet Tubman was to be the new face of the $20 bill. Can you tell me what’s the current status of this project?"

TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: "No ma’am, I can’t, but my staff will get back to you."

BEATTY: "No, I want you to get back to me..."

It was at this point that she decided it would be a good time to launch into a divisive monologue:

“No, I want you to get back to me because, see, there seems to be an issue when it comes to things that affect people of color or people who live in poverty, whether it is what you’re doing with social security, what you are doing with restricting funds—” she said as the chairman’s gavel could be heard repeatedly rapping, with chairman Republican Wisconsin Rep. Bryan Steil eventually telling her that her time had expired.

Decorum be damned. Despite the chairman telling her over and over that her time had expired, she continued to yell. Finally:

I'm not going to yield! I'm not going to stop until you direct him to answer to me as a member of Congress ... I will not stop! I will not be silent!

It goes on till your ears hurt.

Perfectly normal behavior in a congressional hearing, right? Well these days, actually, yes—but I’d like to imagine that it wasn’t always so.

Note that Bessent was actually perfectly polite—he admitted he didn’t know the answer but would get back to her. He didn’t seem condescending, he didn’t act squirrely, he just said he flat-out didn’t know. That’s not a crime. I imagine when you run a large federal agency and haven’t even been at the helm for that long, there is always much more to learn.

Congressional Democrats seem to be further debasing themselves with each passing day. Congratulations, Joyce Beatty—almost nobody had heard of you before this, and now many people have. You too will now join the pantheon of ridiculous people in Congress like Reps. Eric Swalwell and Maxine Waters as the other empty-headed loudmouths who would much rather make a lot of noise than actually accomplish something for the American people. 



Maxine Waters' Cranky Response to Scott Bessent's Light-Hearted Anecdote Shows What a Shrew She Is


Susie Moore reporting for RedState 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is back on Capitol Hill Wednesday for more testimony before the House. Today, it's the Financial Services Committee, which includes Maxine Waters (D-CA). 

The stated purpose of Wednesday's hearing is "The Annual Testimony of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the International Financial System," which sounds rather formal and serious in nature. It doesn't seem that it would lend itself to the all-too-frequent displays of nastiness by congressional Democrats at anyone associated with the Trump administration, but that didn't stop Waters from turning the opportunity for a cordial exchange with Bessent into one that was decidedly mean-spirited on her part, in addition to being rather obtuse. 

Waters begins her questioning of Bessent by asserting that they've never met before. But then he kindly reminds her of a New Year's Eve encounter in the Bahamas, one in which Waters apparently showed off her "Electric Slide" moves. 

Watch: 

WATERS: Secretary Bessent, this is the first time we've met, is that correct?

BESSENT: No, ma'am. We actually met one New Year's Eve in the Bahamas. And I was—

WATERS: (Aside) He didn't make an impression. (To Bessent) Why don't I remember that?

BESSENT: Well, you were much better at the electric slide than I was. And I was with the Prime Minister of the Bahamas yesterday — Prime Minister Davis, who sends his regards.

Setting aside Waters' dig about Bessent not making an impression, Bessent is smiling and sharing what most would consider a humorous anecdote, as well as conveying a polite greeting from a mutual friend. 

Somehow, though, Waters seemingly takes it as an affront and decides to name/title drop — I guess to make herself seem more important? 

WATERS: Well, were you with my husband when he was the Ambassador to the Bahamas appointed by Clinton?

BESSENT: (Nodding) So...

WATERS: Well, you're not going to like this. And so this is the first...uh, didn't remember that, uh, but that's odd because you've been at Treasury and I've sent you five letters to ask about what was going on under your leadership, and only received a couple of cursory replies from your staff. Why didn't you respond? 

BESSENT: Ma'am?

WATERS: I guess you don't know why you didn't respond.

I recognize that the dynamic between congressional Democrats and the administration is adversarial. And Waters may even have a legitimate gripe about not receiving an appropriate response to her inquiries (though, knowing Waters, it's tempting to assume the inquiries themselves may have been specious). 

When I first spied the clip on X and the summary of the exchange, I assumed it was going to be a light-hearted moment. Frankly, those are occasional welcome breathers from the typical rancor we so often see in these hearings. But then I watched it and came away with a decidedly different impression. Bessent was being cordial and affable, while Waters was hellbent on being prickly and adversarial. 

And lest there be any doubt as to the tenor of the rest of their interaction, rest assured, Waters continued with her ill-informed, ill-tempered display, while Bessent politely set her straight. 



Kash Patel Lights Up Congresswoman in Fiery Exchange Over the Real Weaponization Problem


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

FBI Director Kash Patel appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies on the FBI's budget request for the coming year. 

But it seems like at least one Democrat representative wanted to turn it into drama theater by going after Patel. During the hearing, Rep. Madeline Dean (D-PA) claimed that Trump and Patel were "continuing to weaponize and investigate [Trump's] perceived enemies." 

"When can I, as a former impeachment manager, expect the FBI at my door?" she ranted. Was she watching what went on under the Biden administration? The House had to create a new subcommittee to look into weaponization. Those are the issues that she should be asking about, not Patel or President Donald Trump. This took some nerve on her part. But Kash Patel was not going to let her get away with that. 

That's when he shot down her premise. "You want to know who was targeted by a weaponized FBI?" Patel replied. "Me!" 

He said if she wanted to know why, she should "read the book." He also asked her if she wanted to know what he was doing to fix it, noting there was no "enemies list" in the book, but there were "people who violated their Constitutional obligations and duties."  

However, once he went back at her like that, she immediately started talking over him and saying it was time to "move on." He said she should read it and have her constituents read it. Dean said she would not be doing that, he responded, "That's their loss." When she has to "move on," you know who lost that exchange. 

Dean tried again, accusing Patel of previously committing perjury. That was similarly unsuccessful. During her rant, she claimed that "violent rioters beat and killed Capitol Police officers." No Capitol Police officers were killed during the action on Jan. 6, so there was a problem with what she had to say just with that alone. One officer had a stroke and died the following day. 

“Should we worry more about your memory or your veracity?” Dean demanded. That's funny, given what she said, what about her "memory or veracity"? 

Patel torpedoed her effort and called her out for what he thought she was doing.

“We should worry more about your lack of candor. You’re accusing me of committing perjury. Tell the American people how I broke the law and committed a felony. Have the audacity to actually put the facts forward instead of lying for political banter so you can have a 20-second donation hit.”

Oof, now that's brutal. If she was trying for that, I think she failed badly. 

But this is one of the reasons it's important to have a good U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia in the seat. So the battle for justice will not just stall out. 

Patel also showed he isn't afraid to call out Democrats, coming right back at her. She thought she was going to torch him, but found out, instead, that it backfired on her. 



Federal Judge Orders Trump Admin to Begin Processing 12,000 Refugees in Next 7 Days


Susie Moore reporting for RedState 

On Monday, a federal judge in the Western District of Washington issued an order setting forth a "compliance framework" for the Trump administration to follow in order to adhere to his previously entered preliminary injunction. That framework will require the administration to begin processing roughly 12,000 refugees by next Monday. 

It's the latest development in a series of back-and-forth court rulings and moves that have begun to seem a bit like a Ping-Pong match. 

A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to immediately resettle some 12,000 refugees into the U.S. under a court order that partially blocks President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at halting the refugee admissions program

U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead, a 2023 appointee of former President Joe Biden, issued the order despite the Trump administration saying during a hearing last week that it should only have to process 160 refugees into the country and would likely appeal any order requiring thousands to be admitted.

Bear with me while I retrace the chronology of this one:

  • On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14163 suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) "until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States." 
  • On February 10, 2025, plaintiffs (several non-profit organizations and individuals) filed suit against President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and then-acting Secretary of Health and Human Services Dorothy Fink challenging the order (both as to the termination of the USRAP program and funding for it).
  • On February 28, 2025, Judge Jamal Whitehead issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting administration officials from enforcing the executive order. 
  • On March 3, 2025, the Trump administration appealed Whitehead's order to the 9th Circuit.
  • On March 25, 2025, the 9th Circuit issued a partial stay of the preliminary injunction.
  • On April 22, 2025, the 9th Circuit issued a clarification as to its prior order.

That brings us to this recent article, describing that April 22nd order from the 9th Circuit and noting that it basically put the lower court (Whitehead) in check. 

Now, in his "compliance framework" order, Judge Whitehead appears to be letting his snark flag fly — both as to the administration and the 9th Circuit's clipping of his wings. (Okay, it's mostly reserved for the administration, but it's hard not to read some "tone" into his comments regarding the appellate higher-ups, too.) The sticking point involves the third condition included in the 9th Circuit's order regarding which individuals should be exempted from the enforcement of the executive order (i.e., allowed to proceed with the immigration/resettlement process): "3. the individual had arranged and confirmable travel plans to the United States." 

Here are some of the choice comments from Whitehead: 

Plaintiffs advocate a plain-meaning interpretation of this phrase, under which “arranged and confirmable travel plans” refers, simply, to arranged and confirmable travel plans.

The Government, however, would have the Court believe that when the Ninth Circuit used this phrase, it secretly embedded a qualifier requiring that travel must have been scheduled to occur within two weeks of January 20, 2025.

...

The Government’s interpretation is, to put it mildly, “interpretive jiggerypokery” of the highest order. See King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 506 (2015) (Scalia, J., dissenting). It requires not just reading between the lines, but hallucinating new text that simply is not there. The third criterion requires that the individual “had arranged and confirmable travel plans to the United States” as of January 20, 2025. Not “had arranged and confirmable travel plans with a departure window within two weeks of January 20, 2025.” Not “had imminent travel plans.” Not “had travel plans like Plaintiff Pacito’s.” Just, “had arranged and confirmable travel plans.” Had the Ninth Circuit intended to impose a two-week limitation—one that would reduce the protected population from about 12,000 to 160 individuals—it would have done so explicitly. The Ninth Circuit is capable of imposing temporal limitations when it intends to do so. That it did not do so here must be construed as deliberate. And it goes without saying that 12,000 is not the “tens of thousands of individuals” the Ninth Circuit implied to be problematic.

...

This Court will not entertain the Government’s result-oriented rewriting of a judicial order that clearly says what it says. The Government is free, of course, to seek further clarification from the Ninth Circuit. But the Government is not free to disobey statutory and constitutional law—and the direct orders of this Court and the Ninth Circuit—while it seeks such clarification. The Government’s obligation to process, admit, and provide statutorily mandated resettlement support services to the Injunction-Protected Refugees is immediate. Likewise, the Government’s obligation to restore funding, information, and operational support to its USRAP partners as necessary to process, admit, and provide resettlement services to these individuals is also immediate.

We can expect the administration to appeal this order and/or seek further clarification from the 9th Circuit on it because, as noted above, Whitehead's interpretation forces the government to begin immediately admitting roughly 12,000 versus the 160 who had advanced further along in the travel/resettlement process.