executive order

'Wants to sound like a dictator': Conservative slams Trump over newest executive order

President Donald Trump's decision to rename the Defense Department to the "Department of War" is being fervently criticized by multiple journalists and commentators.

A White House official confirmed Thursday that Trump planned to sign an executive order on Friday to rebrand the Department of Defense as the Department of War, allowing the use of that name as a secondary title for the time being.

During a Thursday appearance on CNN, David Axelrod — who was a senior advisor to former President Barack Obama – said the decisions shows that "the president is really intent on turning the clock back to the 19th century."

"So, the Department of War, and tariffs and spheres of influence, where countries just grabbed their neighbors and and gobble up their territory, and we do away with the civil service and so on. But I think he likes the sound of it as much as he likes military parades. The whole militarism thing is, he thinks, is a good reality show," Axelrod told host Jake Tapper on CNN.

Conservative Jonah Goldberg also spoke during the segment. "A lot of this has more to do with appearances he wants. It's like changing the name of the Department of Defense, the Department of War, sounds really macho and costs almost nothing. It's just easy," Goldberg said of Trump.

He went on to say that Trump "definitely wants to sound like a dictator and seem like a dictator, but he actually falls short often from actually crossing the lines."

"Like, he's not betrayed the Supreme Court yet. His flag burning amendment thing was actually a nothingburger. If he actually read the text, but he kind of counts that his biggest fans and his biggest foes will take the bait and take him at his word. And that creates a whole politics that are to his advantage," Goldberg said.

Watch the video below or at this link.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Stupid laws': GOP congressman slams Trump's latest executive order as unconstitutional

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) leveled a constitutional rebuke Monday at President Donald Trump’s latest executive order aimed at prosecuting flag desecration, saying that such actions remain protected under the First Amendment, even if the offending act involves burning the U.S. or Israeli flags.

In a post on the social platform X, Massie reaffirmed his belief that the act of burning one’s own national flag, whether American or Israeli, is “covered by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” insisting that “neither Congress nor the President nor a Judge can make it illegal.”

Massie quote‑posted an earlier tweet from June, bluntly stating: “Burning your own American flag is nenarded, but it’s not illegal, nor should it be. No one should want a federal government so powerful that it can lock you up for a year for burning your own stuff."

"Thankfully our Constitution prohibits Congress from making such stupid laws," the Kentucky Republican added.

Earlier on Monday, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to prosecute individuals who desecrate the American flag, including burning, and to push courts to revisit the Supreme Court’s landmark 1989 ruling in Texas v. Johnson that such acts are constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

The administration also extended penalties to foreign nationals, threatening visa, residency, and naturalization consequences, including deportation, for violators.

While the order does not outright criminalize flag burning, it seeks to prosecute under existing laws where the act could be interpreted as incitement to violence or “fighting words,” and urges more vigorous enforcement. Trump emphasized that burning a flag should carry a mandatory one-year prison sentence without early release.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Not in charge': Trump mocked for 'cognitive deficiencies' in revealing Oval Office moment

President Donald Trump has signed more than 150 executive orders, often with cameras rolling and staff looking on. The ritual rarely varies: seated at the desk in the Oval Office, the President listens as someone—typically the White House Staff Secretary—reads a brief summary of the order. On occasion, Trump interjects with a question, prompting speculation that he may not be fully familiar with the contents. He is seldom seen fully reading the orders themselves, which can span anywhere from a few pages to nearly 70.

On Friday, President Trump signed several executive orders, but according to The Daily Beast, one particularly revealing moment suggested he may not have known what he was signing—describing it as “a telling moment” that implied the president hadn’t read the order.

“Are we doing something about the regulatory in here?” Trump asked a business person attending the event.

“Several business leaders standing around him were quick to chime in that his order did address the regulations while Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also responded, ‘You are, sir,'” The Daily Beast also reported.

— (@)

At the end, Trump asked, “Is that it?” and one of the attendees replied, “That’s all we have for you now, sir.”

Then, rather than asking if there were any questions for him about the executive orders, Trump asked if anyone had any questions for the guests in the room, whom he called “brilliant.”

— (@)

Critics blasted the President.

Fred Wellman is a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School, an Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, and a political consultant.

“He is not in charge,” Wellman alleged.

MSNBC columnist Michael A. Cohen snarked, “It’s almost as if Trump has cognitive deficiencies, which from what I hear on CNN is a major scandal.”

“’Is that it?’ while signing orders he doesn’t understand, parroting talking points he didn’t write, and pretending it’s leadership,” wrote investment banker Evaristus Odinikaeze. “Peak performative confusion.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Violates the Constitution': GOP-appointed judge strikes down 'unlawful' Trump order

President Donald Trump's administration was just handed another significant loss in court – this time, at the hands of a Republican-appointed federal judge.

In a 52-page order issued Friday, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates (who was appointed by President George W. Bush), Trump's March executive order targeting the law firm Jenner & Block has been permanently blocked. Jenner & Block's attorneys will now once again have access to federal buildings and have security clearances restored.

Bates wrote in the ruling that the executive order was designed to punish Janner & Block because one of its attorneys worked with on former FBI Director and Department of Justice special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Trump during his first term in office. He observed that the order was illegal as it undermined the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

"This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," Bates wrote. "It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full."

The Bush-appointed judge also observed that because Jenner & Block is a 900-person law firm with offices in multiple major cities like Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and London, its attorneys have to regularly enter federal buildings, interact with federal employees and handle cases that sometimes involve classified information — hence the need for security clearances. And he pointed out that the firm's lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's order brought up "many more claims of unconstitutionality" outside of the concerns for its own staff.

"These present interesting, difficult, and potentially meritorious questions about the scope of presidential power and more," he wrote. "What has been said here of the First Amendment (and in passing of the Fifth and Sixth), however, is sufficient to declare Executive Order 14246 unlawful and enjoin its operation, eliminating the need to explore those other questions."

The victory for Jenner & Block marks a sharp contrast between how some law firms Trump has targeted with his executive orders have responded, with some opting to cut deals with the administration and others choosing to fight back. The law firms that have taken Trump to court have notched notable successes, including major firms like WilmerHale.

Click here to read Bates' order in its entirety.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Shut people up': Former Trump official fights back against 'insidious' revenge campaign

One official in President Donald Trump's first administration has lately found himself in the crosshairs of the current administration. But he's promising to fight back loudly against his former boss.

NBC News reported Monday that Miles Taylor — who worked in the Department of Homeland Security and been accused by Trump of "treasonous" behavior — is refusing to back down despite the administration targeting him. Taylor was the author of the widely read New York Times op-ed about the "resistance inside the Trump administration," initially published anonymously. In an April executive order, Trump called Taylor an "egregious leaker" and instructed federal agencies to revoke both his security clearance and those of people associated with him. Trump also issued a similar executive order targeting former Cybersecurity and and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) director Christopher Krebs.

Taylor told the network that his previous warnings that Trump would use the power of the executive branch to hound his personal enemies have been realized, and that he is now aiming to fight back in the courts and in the public square.

"My concern was he would turn the government into a revenge machine, and that’s what’s happening," Taylor said. "I have seen indications that they are out there, rummaging through my past, talking to people as far back as high school, and trying to comb through my life."

Taylor denied any allegations of leaking classified information, and insisted that he was being targeted for harassment based on his criticism of the administration. He told NBC that it was critical for Americans to understand that they didn't need a "permission slip" in order to criticize the president.

“Of course, it never crossed our minds that we would try to go settle,” Taylor said. “And what I worry about is that they will try to use this tactic, this bludgeon of the bully pulpit of the presidency, to go shut people up by threatening them and getting them to settle with the White House, like they’ve gotten businesses to settle, like they’re trying to get universities to settle.”

“That is insidious, that is un-American," he added. "You can’t threaten Americans to not exercise their First Amendment rights because they’re fearful the president of the United States will prosecute them.”

Click here to read NBC's full report.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Experts fear Trump’s 'legitimately frightening' new order to turn US military into police

On Monday, President Donald Trump issued a new executive order just shy of the 100th day of his second term that has some experts and academics sounding the alarm.

Trump's new order, which is entitled "Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens," makes various declarations about the administration's commitment to supporting law enforcement professionals in the opening paragraphs. However, one section further down specifically mentions the U.S. military and the administration's intent to have enlisted service members participate in civilian law enforcement actions.

"Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of agencies as appropriate, shall increase the provision of excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist State and local law enforcement ... [and] shall determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime."

"The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall utilize the Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTFs) formed in accordance with Executive Order 14159 of January 20, 2025 (Protecting the American People Against Invasion) to coordinate and advance the objectives of this order," the order continued.

That section in particular prompted Lead Matthew Noe, who is the lead collection & knowledge management librarian at Harvard Medical School, to call the order "legitimately frightening." Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based writer Susan Keiser posted to Bluesky: "Serious Question: Is this martial law[?]" Former criminal defense investigator Andrew H. Sowards responded to the order by simply declaring: "Not good."

"We're already a police state," Daily Beast columnist David Rothkopf skeeted (the accepted term for Bluesky posts). "But now, thanks to this EO, moreso."

Deploying the U.S. military within American borders to act as a police force would be a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is a 143 year-old law prohibiting the president from ordering the military to double as law enforcement. As the Brennan Center for Justice explained in 2021, Congress passed the law during Reconstruction in order to prevent the military from being used to enforce Jim Crow laws in former Confederate states after the Civil War. Additionally, deploying the military to conduct law enforcement activity violates parts of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution — which were ratified in direct response to the British military's abuse of colonists prior to the Revolutionary War.

Click here to read the full executive order.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'I don’t shy away': Ex-Trump staffer named in exec order quits job to 'fully' fight back

Editor's note: The third paragraph of this article has been updated.

One man personally targeted by President Donald Trump who worked for him in his previous administration is now pledging to fight back against his retribution campaign — and has just quit his job to do it.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Christopher Krebs, who led the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) during Trump's first term, is putting together a strategic campaign to fight back against his former boss. Krebs' announcement comes after Trump specifically named him and Miles Taylor — who was a senior Department of Homeland Security official during Trump's first term — in an executive order that demanded they be investigated and be stripped of their security clearances.

According to Krebs, he felt the need to step away from SentinelOne (the cybersecurity firm where he works) so his employer wouldn't experience direct blowback from his efforts to battle against Trump's retribution. He said he felt compelled to do something "about the government pulling its levers to punish dissent, to go after corporate interests and corporate relationships." And he added that he didn't think the "lay-low-and-hope-this-blows-over approach is the right one for the moment we’re in."

“For those who know me, you know I don’t shy away from tough fights,” Krebs wrote in an email to coworkers. “But I also know this is one I need to take on fully — outside of SentinelOne.”

Trump fired Krebs via Twitter in 2020 after the former CISA director refused to endorse his false claims that his election loss to then-candidate Joe Biden was illegitimate. Krebs not only validated Biden's victory as fair, but even said that the 2020 election was the most secure in history. Trump derisively referred to Krebs as a "wiseguy" from the Oval Office.

"He came out right after the election, which was a rigged election, a badly rigged election…this guy Krebs was saying, ‘Oh, the election was great, it was great,'" Trump said prior to signing the order.

Taylor, in the meantime, has also promised to fight back against the Trump administration. He told the Journal that he felt compelled to do so in order to establish that Trump's "punishment for dissent" shouldn't go unchallenged.

Click here to read the Journal's report in full (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'What possible threat do they pose?' Judge grills Trump DOJ attorney over law firm threats

President Donald Trump has recently issued a wave of executive orders targeting law firms that represented some of his political opponents, along with firms where his opponents previously worked. But some of those firms are fighting back, and scoring big wins against the Trump administration in court.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale both sued Trump over his executive orders, which stripped their attorneys of security clearances, barred them from government buildings and directed federal agencies to cancel active contracts with the firms. In the case of WilmerHale, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon (who was appointed by former President George W. Bush) granted the firm a temporary restraining order on Friday blocking Trump's executive order from going into effect.

"The injuries to [WilmerHale] would be severe and spill over to its clients and the justice system at large," Judge Leon wrote.

During Friday afternoon's hearing in Leon's courtroom, the Republican-appointed judge was reportedly "incredulous" when questioning an attorney representing the Trump administration's Department of Justice, according to NBC News reporter Gary Grumbach. Leon pointed out that the E. Barrett Prettyman District of Columbia courthouse was in the same category of buildings that the administration was seeking to prevent the firm's staff from entering.

"What possible threat do they pose from having access to government buildings?" Leon said. “This is a government building."

The white-shoe law firm Perkins Coie was also targeted by one of Trump's executive orders, but the firm's attorneys have held fast and fought back, and some of the firm's clients have reportedly sought to have more work sent to Perkins Coie as a form of encouragement. Some of its top clients, like Boeing, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Intel and even the Seattle Seahawks NFL team have refused to cut their contracts in spite of Trump's attacks.

Not all of the targets of Trump's rage have stood up to him. Last week, the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss) agreed to provide $40 million worth of pro bono work on causes important to the Trump administration in order for Trump to rescind his order targeting the firm, which some critics described as a "shakedown." Trump also agreed to a similar deal with the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom (Skadden) on Friday for $100 million in pro bono services. Both Paul Weiss and Skadden also agreed to not hire new attorneys based on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices.

Click here to read the Journal's report in full (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Huge implications': Experts warn Trump 'trying to rig' midterms with new 'illegal' order

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump issued a new executive order targeting voter eligibility and voting by mail. Various experts, journalists and commentators are now concerned that Trump may be attempting to put his thumb on the scale ahead of next year's midterm elections.

According to the Washington Post, the order "could prevent millions of Americans from voting" if it passes legal muster. Notably, the order mandates that states require voters provide a "government-issued documentary proof of citizenship" upon registering to vote, and that only Real ID drivers' licenses and passports are accepted, whereas birth certificates alone are not sufficient. The order would also ban states from counting mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day, which would be a significant curtailing of voting by mail (states allowing vote-by-mail typically count ballots after Election Day provided that they were postmarked on or before Election Day).

SiriusXM host Dean Obeidallah accused Trump of "trying to rig [the] 2026 election" with the order, and argued that "banning birth certificates is RIGGING!" Alexei Koseff, who covers the California state capitol for CalMatters, said the order has "huge implications" for residents of the largest state in the union, given how much of the Golden State votes by mail. Ottawa, Canada-based radio journalist Andy Pinsent observed: "When this is inevitably shut down by the courts, the [White House] will posture that 'radical judges want illegal immigrants to vote.'" And author Mitchell Plitnick flatly asserted: "The order is illegal. This is Trump testing to see if he can get away with it. Win or lose, you can bet this is only the first volley in a campaign to undermine free and fair elections."

"When they said 'voter fraud' it meant they wanted to do it," University of Iowa associate sociology professor Victor Ray wrote on Bluesky.

When combing through the full text of the executive order itself, Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic instructor Alejandra Caraballo noticed one line that stood out to her. The order stipulates that the Department of Homeland Security will coordinate with the administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — which is unofficially led by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk — to "review each state's publicly available voter registration list and available records concerning voter list maintenance activities."

"Elon Musk would now be in charge of the databases determining voter eligibility," Caraballo wrote.

"I don't say that the law won't stop this and elections won't matter because I'm a doomer. I'm saying this so people understand the moment we're in. We're no longer a democracy," she continued. "People need to accurately diagnose the problem before they can fix it and waiting for the courts or elections isn't it."

Click here to read the Post's full report (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Mob boss government': Trump deal with law firm over executive order ripped as 'shakedown'

One major law firm targeted by President Donald Trump's administration appears to have reached an agreement with the president to get out of his crosshairs. But some experts are alleging that the deal has ominous implications.

The New York Times Michael A. Schmidt reported Thursday that the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss) made several key commitments to the Trump administration after it was targeted in an executive order. The agreement was reached after Paul Weiss' chair visited the White House and met with Trump.

Early on in his second term, Trump issued executive orders mentioning three specific law firms that stripped their attorneys of security clearances and threatened to terminate their federal contracts. But on Thursday, Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that he would rescind the order targeting Paul Weiss after the firm agreed to contribute $40 million in pro bono legal services aligned with the administration's goals, and that it wouldn't pursue "DEI policies" in its hiring.

"Law firms should not favor any political party when it comes to choosing their clients," Trump wrote. "Firms also should not make decisions on whom to hire based on a person’s political affiliation."

However, legal experts on social media condemned the agreement as transactional and corrupt. American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick tweeted: "There's a word for this: shakedown."

"God help our country when the President of the United States is personally shaking down his political opponents for money," he wrote.

Others shared similar sentiments. Bulwark publisher Sarah Longwell calling the Trump administration a "mob boss government." New York University law professor Michael Kasdan called the agreement "unethical shakedown bulls---." Former Bloomberg editorial writer Robert A. George derided the deal as "Literally a LEGAL (services) shakedown." And former Obama administration assistant press secretary Patrick Rodenbush tweeted that the message the deal sent was "bleak."

"Caving into pressure will only embolden future punishment," he wrote. "What’s the purpose of law firms, universities, et al building wealth and power if they’re not willing to use it to fight govt intrusion?"

"Two things are true," attorney Andrew Fleischman tweeted in response to the Paul Weiss agreement. "1. The law firm absolutely had to do this to ensure its own survival and 2. it was absolutely the product of a transparently corrupt and unconstitutional shakedown."

Click here to read the Times' full report (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Speedrun into autocracy': Experts slam Trump’s 'illegal' order to abolish Education Dept.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump is expected to sign a new executive order intended to shutter the Department of Education. But like many of Trump's other executive orders, it's almost certain to be decided in the courts.

NBC News reported Wednesday that Trump's order would instruct Education Secretary Linda McMahon — a former professional wrestling magnate — to "take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure the Department of Education and return education authority to the States, while continuing to ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely." McMahon previously told Fox News that she understood her role as ushering in the agency's destruction.

"That was the president’s mandate," McMahon said. "His directive to me, clearly, is to shut down the Department of Education, which we know we’ll have to work with Congress, you know, to get that accomplished."

As McMahon noted, Trump cannot simply dismantle a federal agency authorized by Congress with the stroke of a pen. States Newsroom reporter Kelsie Moseley-Morris wrote on Bluesky that journalists should "include in reporting that he cannot do this by executive order." And Veronica Goodman, who works on education and workforce policy at the Center for American Progress, also observed that "only Congress has the authority to shutter the Department of Education."

"Imagine thinking a president can just sign away an entire federal department like it’s a gym membership," software engineer Alex Cole tweeted in response to the announcement. "Congress created the Department of Education, so unless Trump has a magic pen that overrides the Constitution, this isn't happening."

If Trump aims to officially abolish the agency — whose $286 billion in appropriations represents roughly 4% of the federal budget — it would require both a majority vote in the House of Representatives and 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to bypass a filibuster. Republicans only have 53 seats, and it's unlikely that seven Democrats would join them in voting for a bill to get rid of the Department of Education. This means that Trump's only remaining option is to get the courts to back his executive order, which is also an unlikely scenario. Tristan Snell, who is a former prosecutor at the Office of the New York Attorney General, reminded his followers on X: "Even the Trump-aligned Heritage Foundation (which released Project 2025) concluded the president lacks unilateral power to kill a department without Congress."

"Every day would be a great day for Article I and III [Congress and the courts, respectively] to wake up and push back on the reckless speedrun into autocracy that Trump II is perpetrating," American University assistant professor David Ryan Miller posted to Bluesky.

Click here to read NBC's full article.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web