Donald Trump's Head-Spinning Foreign Policy
WASHINGTON—President Trump hasn't sounded much like Donald Trump in recent days.
He said the U.S. needed to attack Iran over a growing nuclear threat, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization wasn't ripping off America and that Russian President Vladimir Putin was an impediment to ending the war in Ukraine. It was a remarkable shift for a president who said he would extract the U.S. from foreign entanglements, once called NATO obsolete and often has avoided criticizing Moscow.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would "continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.' ___
an hour ago
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries. Susman Godfrey suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. 'The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' In a statement, the firm called the ruling 'a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation.' 'We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day,' the statement said. Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.
an hour ago
Appeals court puts peace institute back in Trump administration hands with stay of lower court
WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court panel on Friday stayed a lower court ruling that blocked the Trump administration from moving forward with dismantling the U.S. Institute of Peace, an organization taken over in March by the Department of Government Efficiency, then led by Elon Musk. The three-judge panel with the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit issued the stay, saying the Trump administration's appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell's opinion would likely succeed on the merits. The stay added that the president would face 'irreparable harm from not being able to fully exercise his executive powers.' In filings with the higher court supporting its request for an appeal and a stay of Howell's order, the government argued that 'as evidenced by its programmatic, grant making and peacebuilding activities, USIP' was exercising 'considerable executive power.' The filings also went on to explain the board members are 'subject to the president's at-will removal authority.' In issuing the stay, the appeals court agreed and said the nonprofit think tank that focuses on peace initiatives is engaged in activities that fall under the purview of the executive branch. 'Today's decision is a great victory for the American taxpayer. As we have said time and again, the President has the right to manage entities within the Executive Branch — including the so-called 'Institute of Peace,' which cost taxpayers over $50 million per year while failing to deliver peace,' said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. 'The President looks forward to continuing to implement his government efficiency agenda.' The appeal's court action is the latest turn in the government's shutdown of the USIP, which had been turned back over to the organization's board and acting president following Howell's May 19 ruling. It also places the staff's attempt at restarting its operations in limbo. President Donald Trump issued the executive order in February that targeted the institute and three other agencies for closure in an effort to deliver on campaign promises to shrink the size of the federal government. The first attempt by DOGE to take over the headquarters led to a standoff. Members of Musk's DOGE group returned days later with the FBI and Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police to help them gain entry. The institute and many of its board members sued the Trump administration March 18, seeking to prevent their removal and to prevent DOGE from taking over its operations. The firing of the board was followed by a Friday night mass firing by email on March 28, which threw the workforce into turmoil. DOGE transferred the administrative oversight of the organization's headquarters and assets to the General Services Administration that weekend. Howell, in a lengthy opinion in May, reversed the action when she determined the organization was not part of the executive branch and therefore Trump did not have authority to fire its board and acting president. She ruled that all subsequent actions, including the firing of most of the staff, the cessation of operations and the takeover of its headquarters and assets, were illegal as well. Howell denied a government request for a stay of her opinion while the government appeals, a move that led acting president George Moose and others to reclaim the headquarters and begin trying to ramp USIP's operations back up. Those efforts have been slow going, with much of the staff still furloughed and operations in parts of the world shut down. It was unclear Friday if there would be another change of hands of the headquarters. A press statement from the organization said 'we will continue to fight for USIP's right to fulfill its commitment to our congressional mandate and to control USIP's headquarters, funds, and operations to the fullest extent of the law. We remain confident we will prevail in this case and we look forward to continuing our critical work both at our headquarters in Washington, DC and in conflict zones around the world."
