Political Sabotage: The Democrats’ Obstruction of Trump’s Foreign Policy Wins

posted by Mike Robertson at American Thinker 

After securing a strong base of support in the 2024 election, Donald Trump is positioning himself for a renewed push in foreign policy — an area that his supporters argue has deteriorated under recent Democrat direction. With growing global instability and concerns about America’s waning influence abroad, many see Trump’s return as an opportunity to reassert U.S. strength on the world stage. Citing what they view as failures in diplomacy, deterrence, and global leadership under the Biden administration, Trump’s supporters anticipate a more forceful, deal-driven approach that prioritizes national interest and restores America’s negotiating power.

The Deal with Ukraine

One of the most significant early foreign policy moves of President Donald Trump's second term is the U.S.-Ukraine Mineral Resources Agreement, signed on April 30, 2025. The agreement, seen as a strategic counter to Russian influence, was finalized after months of complex negotiations and is viewed by Trump’s supporters as a testament to his assertive and transactional approach to foreign policy, especially in contrast to the strategies of the previous Democrat administration.

Almost immediately, Democrat lawmakers and affiliated media outlets began to raise red flags. They argue that the agreement reflects an overly transactional and politicized approach to foreign policy, questioning whether Trump bypassed traditional diplomatic protocols to bolster his political standing.

Democrats expressed concerns over the agreement’s terms, with some advising Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reject the deal, citing fears of compromising Ukraine’s sovereignty and the absence of explicit security guarantees. Notably, Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) met with Zelenskyy shortly before his Oval Office meeting with Trump, urging caution against a “fake peace agreement” lacking security arrangements for Ukraine. Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) likened Trump’s approach to a coercive real estate tactic, suggesting the deal resembled a demand for Ukraine to “pay rent” through mineral concessions. Furthermore, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) characterized the agreement as “extortion” in a televised interview.

Undercutting Democrats’ Political Narrative

Many Democrats view major deals initiated by Donald Trump as potentially damaging to their own standing because these deals shift the narrative in Trump’s favor. When Trump achieves visible wins on the international stage, it challenges Democrat criticisms of his leadership and complicates their messaging. Such developments can resonate with voters who prioritize results over rhetoric, thereby posing a threat to Democrat poll numbers and weakening their leverage in debates over foreign policy direction and executive decision-making.

The Democrat party has built a complex network of influence across key financial and institutional channels. Supporters see this as a strategic framework for implementing progressive policy goals and ensuring long-term institutional stability. Initiatives like Trump’s foreign economic deals — particularly those negotiated outside traditional diplomatic or bureaucratic structures — are viewed by some Democrats as threats to a financial and governance model they have helped shape over decades.

A growing concern among Trump-aligned policymakers is that meaningful progress in reshaping U.S.-Ukraine relations may be stalled as long as key Ukrainian institutions remain heavily staffed or influenced by figures aligned with pro-Democrat frameworks. Any effort by Trump to establish a new kind of dialogue with Ukraine may be constrained until there is a shift in Ukraine’s internal political and administrative landscape — one that allows for greater openness to his administration’s more transactional and sovereignty-focused foreign policy approach. And a notable example is Tomáš Fiala, a key figure in Ukraine’s financial sector with deep ties to Western institutions and a consistent advocate of liberal democratic alignment.

Ties with Soros and the Democrat Party

Fiala is the CEO and founder of Dragon Capital, a leading Ukrainian investment firm. He has served as the elected President of the European Business Association (EBA) from 2010 to 2015 and again from 2016 to 2021, leading Ukraine’s top business organization comprising over 1,000 companies with more than a million employees. He was also elected to the Board of Transparency International Ukraine from 2016 to 2020, part of a leading global anti-corruption watchdog. In October 2020, Fiala was elected to the Board of Directors of the Kyiv School of Economics.

He has been associated with George Soros through business partnerships and media ownership in Ukraine. In 2015, Soros became an anchor investor in a new Ukraine fund managed by Dragon Capital, marking a significant international investment in the country following its 2014 revolution. Additionally, Dragon Capital’s pro-Western stance and Soros’s involvementhave been noted in discussions about media ownership and potential foreign influence channels in Ukraine. By the way, Soros Fund Management has held various investment positions across the financial sector, including bonds issued by major firms like BlackRock.

Regarding connections to the Democrat party, the media outlets associated with Fiala have supported Democrat figures. For instance, reports indicate that a media group funded by the Open Society Foundation and managed by Fialaplayed an active role in the U.S. electoral process, supporting Democrat candidates.

As Trump Sets the Narrative, Democrats Struggle to Respond

Some Democrat strategists are reportedly growing concerned that the ideological momentum behind Trump-aligned populism could disrupt their longstanding influence over policy and financial frameworks - both domestically and in foreign relations. This includes not only narrative control but also influence over financial channels such as foreign aid, NGO funding, and institutional partnerships.

With the 2026 Congressional elections approaching, many within the Democrat party see the stakes as increasingly high. For them, preventing a deeper shift in public sentiment — and preserving their grip on key institutions and funding networks — has become a political priority.

But Democrat strategies to counter his influence have largely fallen flat. Rather than offering a compelling alternative vision, many within the party appear to be relying on the hope that Trump will eventually sabotage himself through legal missteps or controversial decisions. Despite internal calls for a bold rebranding, Democrats remain fragmented and overly reactive, often focused more on opposing Trump than defining their own agenda. This passive stance leaves them vulnerable, especially as Trump continues to dominate political discourse with a clear, sovereignty-focused message. Ultimately, waiting for him to stumble may prove to be a losing strategy as the 2026 congressional elections approach.

Ensuring Loyalty and Effectiveness

As Donald Trump pushes forward with a series of high-profile foreign policy initiatives — ranging from negotiations with Ukraine on resource development to renewed diplomatic overtures in the Middle East — the Democrats are increasingly focused on delaying or obstructing these efforts. In this view, the Democrat strategy is less about offering a clear foreign policy alternative and more about buying time to regroup and rebuild public support after electoral losses.

To effectively carry out the policy agenda, the president must continue to go beyond reforming agencies like USAID and pursue broader leadership changes across the federal government because as it stands, certain agencies are remaining staffed with individuals whose ideological leanings conflict with Trump’s vision. If Trump leaves pro-Democrat officials in key government and diplomatic positions, the Republicans risk enabling internal opposition that could undermine their foreign policy goals. These individuals, aligned with previous administrations’ multilateral and progressive agendas, may reinterpret or redirect the implementation of Trump-initiated deals to align with Democrat priorities.

X22, And we Know, and more- May 20

 

There Is No Reason to Believe Democrats on Biden or Anything Else

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

Joe Biden is sick. This is not news, nor is it new. But he is sick. Prostate cancer; advanced and “aggressive.” I’m no doctor, but wasn’t he constantly monitored by doctors while President of the United States? How are we just hearing this now?

We were told last year that Joe Biden was completely fit and ready to serve another 4 years at President of the United States. In February of last year, his government doctor, one who you’d assume was pretty good, reported the following:

“An extremely detailed neurologic exam was again reassuring in that there were no findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurological disorder, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s or ascending lateral sclerosis, nor are there any signs of cervical myelopathy. This exam did again support a finding of peripheral neuropathy in both feet. No motor weakness was detected. He exhibits no tremor, either at rest or with activity. He demonstrates excellent fine motor dexterity. But a subtle difference in heat/cold sensation could be elicited as it was last year. This heat/cold sensation deficit was detected a couple of inches higher on his ankle/calf this year, which is not unexpected. There may; in fact, be day to day subjective variation of these findings, as during last year’s exam, this area of sensation deficit was actually found to be smaller than the year before.”

Joe was ready to rumble, they said. But it turns out that Joe was only ready to rumble with a dead Corn Pop, who I am told was a bad dude. Living people, on the other hand, were an altogether different matter for Joe. 

The year before, his doctor reported that Joe “remains a healthy, vigorous 80-year-old male, who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency.”

Are we really supposed to believe that there were zero signs of prostate cancer in Joe for his entire presidency? It appears to develop slowly in most cases, and one would assume that a President would have the most thorough examination of everything that is available. Did they miss it? Did they not look for it?

If they were telling the truth about what they found in regards to Joe’s mental fitness during his term, they are less observant than Hellen Keller would have been if she’d served as a look-out from a perch at deer camp. If they weren’t telling the truth about that, why would we believe they were telling the truth about this?

Of course, doctors can’t reveal a patient’s personal medical information without that person’s permission (unless they don’t like being a doctor or having money). But they don’t have to lie on behalf of that patient either. 

Ultimately, the duty to tell the public the truth about any potential cancer diagnosis lies with him, but we all know he was the President Who Wasn’t There. How can an auto-pen waive their HIPA rights or advise staff to go tell the public the truth?

Given how they hid his mental decline, it is quite likely that Joe Biden’s handlers simply ordered the military doctors to hide anything unusual from the public. I mean, what’s a little early-stage prostate cancer when you’re insisting someone unaware of their surroundings half the time is fit to lead the free world?

I don’t know that this happened, but I do know there isn’t a single person who worked in the Biden White House who has earned the benefit of doubt on any issue, ever. And there isn’t a single person in the corporate liberal media who would have told the world if they knew, or even bothered to ask the question if they had a source on the inside who could have known.

That’s the problem with the corruption of the media during the Biden administration and with how Democrats lie constantly, about everything, as long as it benefits them politically. Once the trust is gone, it’s gone. And it’s never coming back.

We may learn that Biden’s diagnosis is a rarity that manifests itself so quickly that catching it early is simply a matter of luck, or we may find out that many people knew all along and hid it because they didn’t want the public to have a complete picture of the health of the President. Hell, we already know that last part is true, about his mental fitness, and if they’d lie about something that important, why would anyone believe they wouldn’t lie about any and everything less important than that?

The truth is they absolutely would.

We Have No Moral Obligation to Forgive or Forget the Biden Lies

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

What a remarkable coincidence that Joe Biden’s wranglers discovered he had cancer right in the middle of the revelations about how he was totally senile and everyone around him, including his very real doctor wife, covered it up. Yeah, right. His puppet masters knew, even if that human rutabaga didn’t. Stage IV prostate cancer doesn’t sneak up on you. It’s easy to detect. I know my PSA. It’s .07. I got it tested a couple of weeks ago. I get it tested every year. Weird that I have better medical care than the President of the United States, right? But you don’t believe that. And I don’t believe that. The hacks, frauds, and charlatans demanding that you believe that certainly don’t believe that.

The Democrat Party: It’s all a lie. It’s all a scam. They hid his likely terminal disease so he could be reelected, disclose it, quit, be hailed as a selfless hero (Hat Tip: Buck Sexton), and hand the country to that drooling half-wit vice president of his. We all know it. And we need to say it, loudly and often, regardless of how hard the whiners whine.

There are two categories of people who heard the “news” – well, it was only news to the American people – and immediately told us that we need to slow our roll on demanding accountability for the rudderless presidency in solemn deference to this ultra-convenient revelation. The first kind are nice people, too nice. Some are serial Fredocon invertebrates who always counsel weakness, submission, and silence. Some believe Christian charity requires not only prayers for him and his family but a free pass on this massive wrongdoing for everyone involved. Others have an understandable sensitivity to the subject because they had family members who suffered the same terrible illness that Joe Biden has just been revealed to have, even though everybody around him must’ve known he had it for years and simply lied to cover it up. 

Well, the sissies can pound sand; they look at history and think the Vichy French were too belligerent. I’m not going to judge the others; you need to follow your conscience. But I’m also not going to listen to them. I’m going to say what I want, all the time, and I’m going to continue to point out that Joe Biden is an evil, senile, corrupt pervert, who was and is surrounded by minions interested only in retaining their prestige, power, and plunder.

The other category of people demanding that we shut up about the obvious truth that this is all part of an enormous scam are the people in on the con, the Democrat politicians, social media mouthpieces, and the regime media. But truth-shaming won’t work, not anymore. It’s remarkable how stuck in the 20th century these Democrats and affiliates are with their narrative-molding strategies. They really think that the old rules are still in effect, that they can leverage fake decorum to shut us up because the regime media will be able to act as censors and keep the hard questions from ever being asked. Well, today there are more than three networks and there are more than two newspapers. There’s also this thing called the Internet, and we’re going to use it to talk about how the people who put their hands inside Joe Biden’s puppet headfaked his presidency for four years. 

This bogus cancer diagnosis – I don’t doubt that he has Stage IV cancer, I just doubt his handlers figured that out last week – is so obviously a flex designed to shut us up that I’m almost insulted they would pull it on us. They must think we’re Democrats too, that we’ll fall for this nonsense, that we will decide to lighten up on our righteous fury provoked by the recent revelations, in books and in the Hur tapes, about how everybody in the White House, the Democrat Party, and the regime media knew he was senile and lied to our faces for four years. That’s four years at a minimum – the dude has been an eggplant for the last ten, and even before that he was a moron.

“But but but but but you’re picking on a guy with a stutter who has prostate cancer!”

Well, the fake fussy pearl-clutching over us being meanies isn’t going to work anymore. I, for one, remember their grave disappointment when Donald Trump was almost murdered, and when an innocent man was. Just the other day, I stumbled on a Twitter thread of leftist morons explaining how the whole Butler shooting thing was a giant head fake designed to do something because of reasons and shut up, you’re all racists and literally Hitler. If Trump got a prostate cancer diagnosis, every blue state and Ivy League college campus would declare a holiday. The difference is that we’re not celebrating his disease; we’re just not granting a blanket pardon because of it.

I need to ask, “What’s the rule?” What’s the rule about the reaction we’re allowed to have to a transparent attempt to shut up any discussion about the greatest cover-up in American history? Well, let me tell you the rule. We’re going to say and do whatever we want, all the time. What are the Dems going to do about it? Tell us we’re even worse than they already say we are? I refer you to the aforementioned stuff about how we’re already literally racist Hitlers. Where do they go from there? The left is all out of epithets, and we’re all out of patience.

I’m not demanding that you dance around in glee at Joe Biden’s misfortune.  I’m not demanding that you don’t. I’m not demanding that you do anything. You decide what you’re going to do. If you want to offer your sympathies and prayers to him and his family, go right ahead. And if you want to announce that you don’t care because this guy didn’t care about you, because he got a bunch of people killed, and he was the worst president of the last century, a century that included President Jimmy Carter, I’m not going to tell you not to do that either. You do what you want. You say what you want. And the leftists can seethe. 

It’s not about how we feel about Joe Biden, though they want to make it about that to distract us from what this is really about – accountability for the gravest crime ever committed against our democracy. J6 was just a rowdy afternoon. This was a four-year coup by faceless courtiers who no one ever voted for who presumed to sign laws, open the borders, give pardons, and send troops into combat – some of whom, through incompetence, came home inside metal boxes – in the name of a mindless marionette. Where are all the Muh Democracy people today? Telling us to let this go.

But we can’t let this go. I’m not one for congressional hearings. I think most of them are performance art, similar to the kind of performance a sketchy creep in a raincoat gives near a playground during his lunch break from his job at the Lincoln Project. But America being put on autopilot for four years is an appropriate subject for a congressional inquiry, with subpoenas, depositions, and public hearings. The alleged President of the United States, the guy with his crusty finger on the nuclear button, was senile and corrupt, and now it’s revealed that he had a debilitating illness as well. His people covered it up. That’s worth digging into. It’s worth finding out the truth. America deserves some answers about how one political party, aided and abetted by our garbage regime media, lied to us for four years of a “Weekend at Bernie’s” presidency, while who the hell knows was running our country. 

Don’t ask me for pity, and don’t try and leverage my sensibilities. We’re past that. We are way past that. Time to double down on digging deep into the Biden scandal. No prostate cancer pardons; the people who tried to pull off this coup must pay.

Exclusive: FDA Stops Recommending Covid Vaccine Boosters for Most Americans

 ‘This is a restoration of trust,’ said vaccine czar Vinay Prasad. ‘It’s bringing us back to evidence.’

A nurse administers the Covid-19 vaccine to a woman in Corona, California, on January 15, 2021. 

In a paper published today in The New England Journal of Medicine, Martin Makary, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Vinay Prasad, the newly appointed head of the FDA’s vaccine division, have unveiled a new policy in which the government will no longer recommend Covid booster shots for healthy Americans ages 64 and younger.

In addition, as of today, Covid vaccine manufacturers like Moderna and Pfizer will have to conduct trials to prove that their updated vaccines offer clinical benefits such as fewer symptoms, hospitalizations, or deaths. Previously, pharmaceutical companies only had to show that their updated booster shots produced antibodies. That less rigorous standard will still apply for people 65 and older and the immunocompromised.

It is well established that people 65 and older account for the vast majority of Covid deaths, while most children, in particular, show few effects from the virus.

In an exclusive interview with The Free Press, Prasad said that the previous one-size-fits-all approach—in which the federal government recommended Covid vaccine boosters for everyone, including healthy 6-month-olds—“fatigued” the country.

“The American people were skeptical, and some of them took that skepticism to every single vaccine, which has led to some big problems,” said Prasad, referring to the fact that a growing number of Americans have stopped having their children vaccinated for measles, mumps, and rubella, leading to measles outbreaks in pockets of the country. “This is a restoration of that trust. It’s bringing us back to evidence.”

The move is one part of what is expected to be further changes in federal Covid vaccine policy. According to The Wall Street Journal, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to scrap guidelines recommending routine Covid vaccinations for pregnant women, teenagers, and children. Late last month, in an interview with Phil McGraw (popularly known as Dr. Phil), Kennedy advised parents to “do your own research” before vaccinating their newborns. That skepticism is increasingly shared by the public: Less than a quarter of Americans received boosters in recent years, according to Makary and Prasad’s paper. Even healthcare workers have been slow to roll up their sleeves—fewer than one third reported getting a booster in 2023.

Prior to joining the administration earlier this month, Prasad had been critical of the FDA’s guidance about vaccines and booster shots. As he wrote in The Free Press in 2022, “An 88-year-old has 8,700 times the risk of death of an 8-year-old.” But, he added, “Scientists that advocated for a more nuanced approach—do more to protect older people, and put fewer limits on younger people—were demonized.” Prasad himself was one of those scientists. Makary was also a critic of the federal government’s Covid response, including in the pages of The Free Press.

The shift to more rigorous vaccine approval marks a major departure from how Covid boosters have been authorized over the last few years. In 2020, during the height of Covid, Moderna and Pfizer, the first companies to have a vaccine ready for widespread use, both received emergency-use authorization for their vaccines, despite the fact they had only been shown to produce antibodies. The pandemic emergency caused the government to move faster to approve vaccines than it would have under ordinary circumstances.

But even after the emergency passed, the same standard applied when vaccine makers updated their formulas for booster shots: Antibody production was enough to gain FDA approval. In 2022, when the FDA approved updated boosters that had been tested in mice—but not humans—the agency was deluged in criticism. “Frankly, the biggest downside is less the safety aspect and more the efficacy aspect,” Genevieve Kanter, assistant professor of medicine, medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, told Poynter at the time.

Dr. Paul Offit, a well-known pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases and a member of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Council, even told Time magazine that he was “uncomfortable” with the agency’s decision to green-light the updated vaccines. The agency’s decision to forgo extensive clinical trials was intended to keep pace with the evolution of the disease. But in their paper, which was shared exclusively with The Free Press, Prasad and Makary said that it was time to return to “gold-standard science.”

“We simply don’t know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal [body mass index] who has had Covid-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a Covid-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose,” they wrote. “This policy will compel much-needed evidence generation.”

To Prasad, the new framework is a “common sense approach” that will put the U.S. “much closer to every country in Europe.” Countries such as France, the UK, and Sweden now limit Covid-booster recommendations to the elderly and immunocompromised. In stark contrast, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still urges everyone ages 6 months and older to get the 2024–2025 vaccine—regardless of prior infection, risk profile, or number of previous doses.

“We’re finally falling in line with all the other thoughtful people in the world who think it is ridiculous to give a healthy 12-year-old girl her seventh dose without any evidence,” Prasad said. “And we’re not saying we’re never going to do it—we’re just saying: Prove to me it helps her before we do it.”

https://www.thefp.com/p/fda-covid-boosters-vinay-prasad?utm_campaign=260347&utm_source=cross-post&r=rd3ao&utm_medium=email

🎭 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. 

SCOTUS Oral Argument In Nationwide Injunction Case Illustrates Courts’ Coup Against Trump

By reverse-engineering the cases, the lower courts are ignoring what should be the initial questions of standing, jurisdiction, and in some cases even the merits.

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday in three cases concerning challenges to President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. The question before the high court was not, however, the constitutionality of the EO, but rather whether the lower courts had authority to issue injunctions on a nationwide basis to bar implementation of an EO. You would be hard pressed to know that, though, from the justices’ questions — the overwhelming number of which focused instead on how to stop Trump.

“So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Justice Sotomayor declared early in the argument, referring to the Trump Administration’s EO on birthright citizenship. “And you are claiming that not just the Supreme Court — that both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive from — universally from violating that holding — those holdings by this Court,” Justice Sotomayor further charged. “[W]hy should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action,” the justice pushed, when a nationwide injunction could immediately remedy the executive branch’s unlawful action.

Justice Kagan likewise framed the question for the Court as how to promptly halt the implementation of a president’s EO which is “dead wrong” on the law. “[E]very court has ruled against you” on the birthright citizenship question, she intoned to Solicitor General D. John Sauer. 

“If one thinks — and, you know, look, there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions, but I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that it’s quite clear that the EO is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame on your set of rules without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?” Justice Kagan further questioned the Trump Administration.

Those excerpts were but a few exchanges during the nearly three-hour hearing, with Justices Sotomayor and Kagan monopolizing much of last week’s oral argument with their questions focused solely on a solution: In effect, how do the courts expeditiously stop Trump, other than with a nationwide injunction? In positing this question, Justice Kagan even acknowledged “there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions . . . ”

From a legal perspective, the two liberal justices have it entirely backwards: The legal question for the justices was not how do courts accomplish their goal of stopping Trump without nationwide injunctions, but rather, do courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions?

The Supreme Court spent little time probing that question, which includes two fundamental issues. The first issue is whether nationwide injunctions are within a court’s “traditional equitable authority,” such that Congress, in granting the lower courts equitable jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act, gave judges the power to issue nationwide injunctions. 

Justice Thomas alone focused on that question, asking both sides to explain the history of nationwide injunctions so he could determine if such a broad remedy fell within the courts’ traditional equitable authority. For their part, Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh commented only briefly on the historical question of whether universal injunctions fit within the courts’ traditional equitable authority. Those exchanges suggested such nationwide injunctions could not be squared with historical practice, and that the lower courts lacked authority to issue them.

But even if Congress authorized the courts to issue nationwide injunctions, that would merely raise the second fundamental question for the Court: Whether the issuance of nationwide injunctions exceeds the courts’ Article III authority to address “cases” or “controversies.” During Thursday’s argument, the Trump Administration posited that Article III requires courts to “grant remedies that are tailored to remove the injury to the complaining plaintiff,” and nationwide injunctions thus far exceed the courts’ constitutional authority.

The justices spent virtually no time exploring the Article III question — a fundamental question of constitutional law concerning the jurisdiction of the courts.

Taken together, the entirety of last week’s oral argument reveals why the Trump Administration faces a flood of nationwide injunctions. 

The litigants challenging the president’s American First agenda have filed their 100-plus lawsuits in the same handful of courts, which are presided over by liberal judges. And those judges, just like Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, view the Trump Administration’s policies and actions as “dead wrong.” Those lower courts likewise see the question before them as how can they stop Trump.

By reverse-engineering the cases, the lower courts are ignoring what should be the initial questions of standing, jurisdiction, and in some cases even the merits, the latter of which the judges presume the Trump Administration is wrong on. 

But why shouldn’t they? After all, several Supreme Court justices take the same tact. And if a majority of the high court issues a decision in the birthright cases that acquiesces in the use of nationwide injunctions, there will be no end to the use of nationwide injunctions because a judge will always find an excuse to justify the remedy — just as the same justices bemoaning the “abuses of nationwide” injunctions did.