
‘Stop violating the law!': Exasperated judge blasts Trump for blackout over public money
In a ruling on Monday, District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, D.C. found that the White House Office of Management and Budget illegally took down a public website showing how federal agencies spend taxpayer money.
'There is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public's money,' Sullivan wrote in a 60-page opinion.
'Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!' added Sullivan — emphasis his.
The administration removed the website in March. OMB director Russell Vought told members of Congress that the office intentionally flouted the law by scraping the database due to the 'sensitive' and 'deliberative' nature of the information on it.
A lawsuit from nonprofit watchdog groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy accused the administration of removing data to which they are statutorily entitled as part of their efforts to monitor government funding.
According to Sullivan, Trump and Vought relied on 'an extravagant and unsupported theory of presidential power' to argue that the government's appropriation of public funds does not need to be publicly disclosed.
Instead, they complained about the 'extra work' required of them under law passed by Congress in 2022 and 2023, Sullivan wrote.
'This is a management issue; not a constitutional one,' he said.
The judge ordered OMB to restore the database and publicly disclose the information on it, including any apportionment information from the time the database was taken offline.
'The law is clear that the federal government must make its appropriations decisions public,' according to Adina Rosenbaum, Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney and counsel on the case. 'So this case turned on a straightforward point: The administration must follow the law.'
Nikhel Sus, deputy chief counsel at CREW, said the decision 'reaffirms Congress's constitutional authority to require public disclosure of how taxpayer dollars are spent.'
'Americans have a right to know how taxpayer money is being spent,' he added. 'Ensuring public access to this information serves as a critical check on the executive branch's abuse and misuse of federal funds.'
The Trump administration has repeatedly taken a beating in federal court, with dozens of court orders across the country striking down key elements of his agenda as unconstitutional, or, in one case, confounding a judge who compared his sweeping executive actions to a 'gumbo' giving him 'heartburn.'
The president, whose critics have accused him of mounting a constitutional crisis in his defiance of the courts, has resisted court orders nearly one-third of the time.
In an analysis of 165 court orders filed against the Trump administration, The Washington Post found the president has been accused of defying decisions in at least 57 cases.
The Supreme Court's recent decision stemming from legal challenges striking down his executive order that seeks to redefine birthright citizenship could significantly diminish judicial authority.
The high court's decision could effectively prevent judges — who are facing an avalanche of legal questions challenging the constitutionality of the president's agenda — from issuing nationwide injunctions, making it extraordinarily difficult to unwind the president's actions if they are later found to be illegal.
Vought, meanwhile, argues that the appropriations process should be 'less bipartisan.'
'There is no voter in the country that went to the polls and said, 'I'm voting for a bipartisan appropriations process,'' he told a Christian Science Monitor event last week. 'That may be the view of something that appropriators want to maintain.'
Vought, a former Heritage Foundation policy director and co-author of Project 2025, had recently ushered through legislation to revoke $9 billion in previously approved federal funding to gut global aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds National Public Radio and PBS.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


South Wales Guardian
22 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi set to sign off on Britain-India trade deal
The Prime Minister and his Indian counterpart also agreed ahead of their meeting on Thursday to ramp up joint efforts to tackle illegal migration and organised crime. The UK-India trade deal is understood to be the largest of its kind for its economic impact on Britain. It will see tariffs on an array of British goods reduced from an average of 15% to 3%, with the aim of boosting the £11 billion of imports into the south Asian nation. Whisky tariffs will be slashed in half, according to the Government, and will fall further over successive years, while other industries including soft drinks, cars and cosmetics are also expected to see cheaper duties. Before his meeting with Mr Modi to confirm the deal, Sir Keir said: 'Our landmark trade deal with India is a major win for Britain. It will create thousands of British jobs across the UK, unlock new opportunities for businesses and drive growth in every corner of the country, delivering on our Plan for Change. 'We're putting more money in the pockets of hardworking Brits and helping families with the cost of living, and we're determined to go further and faster to grow the economy and raise living standards across the UK.' The deal is expected to result in 2,200 jobs across the country and £6 billion investment by British and Indian businesses. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the investment will 'reach all regions and nations of the UK so working people in every community can feel the benefits'. He added: 'The almost £6 billion in new investment and export wins announced today will deliver thousands of jobs and shows the strength of our partnership with India as we ensure the UK is the best place in the world to invest and do business.' The UK and India are also bolstering co-operation on tackling corruption, fraud, organised crime and illegal migration, by sharing criminal records and other intelligence. The deal has not given the UK as much access as it would have liked to India's financial and legal services industries. The agreement promises some benefits for the UK's financial services, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves understood to have pushed on behalf of the sector in discussions with her Indian counterpart. But more wide-ranging access was not agreed, and talks continue on a bilateral investment treaty aimed at protecting British investments in India and vice versa. The two nations also continue to discuss UK plans for a tax on high-carbon industries, which India believes could hit its imports unfairly. Negotiations on the deal began when Boris Johnson was prime minister in 2022, and were concluded in May this year. Labour sought to portray closing the deal, as well as trade agreements with the US and the EU, as evidence of the Government's pragmatism and global outlook. But shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said it had only been made possible 'because of Brexit delivered by the Conservatives'. He added: 'Any trade deal that can successfully cut regulation which stops Britain's makers from creating new jobs and wealth will be a step in the right direction. 'But the irony should not be lost on anyone that any gains from this trade deal will be blown out of the water by (Deputy Prime Minister) Angela Rayner's union charter, stifling business with red tape, the jobs tax and, come autumn, Rachel Reeves' inevitable tax hikes that will punish Britain's makers just to reward those who do not contribute.' The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said that the signing 'sends a powerful signal that the UK is open for business and remains resolute in its commitment to free and fair trade'. Chief executive Rain Newton-Smith added: 'A trade agreement with India – one of the world's fastest-growing economies – is a springboard for long-term partnership and prosperity. UK firms can take advantage of this new platform to scale, diversify and compete on the global stage.' Elsewhere, Sir Keir is facing calls to raise the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British citizen who has been detained in India since 2017, when the Prime Minister meets Mr Modi. The Scottish Sikh is accused of being a member of the Khalistan Liberation Force, which is banned as a terror group in India. His family say he is being arbitrarily detained, with his brother Gurpreet Singh Johal insisting the matter should be 'high on the agenda when the prime ministers meet'.

Rhyl Journal
22 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi set to sign off on Britain-India trade deal
The Prime Minister and his Indian counterpart also agreed ahead of their meeting on Thursday to ramp up joint efforts to tackle illegal migration and organised crime. The UK-India trade deal is understood to be the largest of its kind for its economic impact on Britain. It will see tariffs on an array of British goods reduced from an average of 15% to 3%, with the aim of boosting the £11 billion of imports into the south Asian nation. Whisky tariffs will be slashed in half, according to the Government, and will fall further over successive years, while other industries including soft drinks, cars and cosmetics are also expected to see cheaper duties. Before his meeting with Mr Modi to confirm the deal, Sir Keir said: 'Our landmark trade deal with India is a major win for Britain. It will create thousands of British jobs across the UK, unlock new opportunities for businesses and drive growth in every corner of the country, delivering on our Plan for Change. 'We're putting more money in the pockets of hardworking Brits and helping families with the cost of living, and we're determined to go further and faster to grow the economy and raise living standards across the UK.' The deal is expected to result in 2,200 jobs across the country and £6 billion investment by British and Indian businesses. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the investment will 'reach all regions and nations of the UK so working people in every community can feel the benefits'. He added: 'The almost £6 billion in new investment and export wins announced today will deliver thousands of jobs and shows the strength of our partnership with India as we ensure the UK is the best place in the world to invest and do business.' The UK and India are also bolstering co-operation on tackling corruption, fraud, organised crime and illegal migration, by sharing criminal records and other intelligence. The deal has not given the UK as much access as it would have liked to India's financial and legal services industries. The agreement promises some benefits for the UK's financial services, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves understood to have pushed on behalf of the sector in discussions with her Indian counterpart. But more wide-ranging access was not agreed, and talks continue on a bilateral investment treaty aimed at protecting British investments in India and vice versa. The two nations also continue to discuss UK plans for a tax on high-carbon industries, which India believes could hit its imports unfairly. Negotiations on the deal began when Boris Johnson was prime minister in 2022, and were concluded in May this year. Labour sought to portray closing the deal, as well as trade agreements with the US and the EU, as evidence of the Government's pragmatism and global outlook. But shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said it had only been made possible 'because of Brexit delivered by the Conservatives'. He added: 'Any trade deal that can successfully cut regulation which stops Britain's makers from creating new jobs and wealth will be a step in the right direction. 'But the irony should not be lost on anyone that any gains from this trade deal will be blown out of the water by (Deputy Prime Minister) Angela Rayner's union charter, stifling business with red tape, the jobs tax and, come autumn, Rachel Reeves' inevitable tax hikes that will punish Britain's makers just to reward those who do not contribute.' The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said that the signing 'sends a powerful signal that the UK is open for business and remains resolute in its commitment to free and fair trade'. Chief executive Rain Newton-Smith added: 'A trade agreement with India – one of the world's fastest-growing economies – is a springboard for long-term partnership and prosperity. UK firms can take advantage of this new platform to scale, diversify and compete on the global stage.' Elsewhere, Sir Keir is facing calls to raise the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British citizen who has been detained in India since 2017, when the Prime Minister meets Mr Modi. The Scottish Sikh is accused of being a member of the Khalistan Liberation Force, which is banned as a terror group in India. His family say he is being arbitrarily detained, with his brother Gurpreet Singh Johal insisting the matter should be 'high on the agenda when the prime ministers meet'.


The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
A timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, now 20 years old
Interest in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation has exploded over the past month even as President Donald Trump urged the public and media to move on from a saga he sees as ' pretty boring.' Conspiracy theories and outrage have swirled around Epstein since 2006, when the financier first faced criminal charges related to sexual exploitation of underage girls. He killed himself after more charges were brought in 2019. Fascination with the case reached new heights after Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested she had an Epstein 'client list' on her desk but then didn't release documents with any new information. Here is a timeline of the criminal cases against Epstein and his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for helping him abuse teenage girls. ___ March 2005: Police in Palm Beach, Florida, begin investigating Epstein after the family of a 14-year-old girl reports she was molested at his mansion. Multiple underage girls, many of them high school students, would later tell police Epstein hired them to give sexual massages. May 2006: Palm Beach police officials sign paperwork to charge Epstein with multiple counts of unlawful sex with a minor, but the county's top prosecutor, State Attorney Barry Krischer, takes the unusual step of sending the case to a grand jury. July 2006: Epstein is arrested after a grand jury indicts him on a single count of soliciting prostitution. The relatively minor charge draws almost immediate attention from critics, including Palm Beach police leaders, who assail Krischer publicly and accuse him of giving Epstein special treatment. The FBI begins an investigation. 2007: Federal prosecutors prepare an indictment against Epstein. But for a year, the money manager's lawyers engage in talks with the U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, about a plea bargain that would allow Epstein to avoid a federal prosecution. Epstein's lawyers decry his accusers as unreliable witnesses. June 2008: Epstein pleads guilty to state charges: one count of solicitating prostitution and one count of soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18. He is sentenced to 18 months in jail. Under a secret arrangement, the U.S. attorney's office agrees not to prosecute Epstein for federal crimes. Epstein serves most of his sentence in a work-release program that allows him to leave jail during the day to go to his office, then return at night. July 2009: Epstein is released from jail. For the next decade, multiple women who say they are Epstein's victims wage a legal fight to get his federal non-prosecution agreement voided, and hold him and others liable for the abuse. One of Epstein's accusers, Virginia Giuffre, says in her lawsuits that, starting when she was 17, Epstein and his girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, set up sexual encounters with royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and other rich and powerful men, including Britain's Prince Andrew. All of those men deny the allegations. November 2018: The Miami Herald revisits the handling of Epstein's case in a series of stories focusing partly on the role of Acosta — who by this point is President Donald Trump's labor secretary — in arranging his unusual plea deal. The coverage renews public interest in the case. July 6, 2019: Epstein is arrested on federal sex trafficking charges after federal prosecutors in New York conclude they aren't bound by the terms of the earlier non-prosecution deal. Days later, Acosta resigns as labor secretary amid public outrage over his role in the initial investigation. Aug. 10, 2019: Guards find Epstein dead in his cell at a federal jail in New York City. Investigators conclude he killed himself. July 2, 2020: Federal prosecutors in New York charge Ghislaine Maxwell with sex crimes, saying she helped recruit the underage girls that Epstein sexually abused and sometimes participated in the abuse herself. Dec. 30, 2021: After a monthlong trial, a jury convicts Maxwell of multiple charges, including sex trafficking, conspiracy and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity. June 28, 2022: Maxwell is sentenced to 20 years in prison. January 2024: Public interest in the Epstein case surges after a judge unseals thousands of pages of court records in a civil lawsuit involving one of his victims. Almost all of the information was already public and the dayslong document dump proves disappointing to people who hoped it would spill new secrets about wrongdoing by the rich and powerful. But it fuels demands for even more records to be made public. 2024: Trump, who was in office when Epstein was arrested, suggests during the presidential campaign that he'd seek to open the government's Epstein files. February 2025: Attorney General Pam Bondi suggests in a Fox News Channel interview that an Epstein 'client list' is sitting on her desk. The Justice Department distributes binders marked 'declassified' to far-right influencers at the White House, but it quickly becomes clear much of the information had long been in the public domain. July 7, 2025: The Justice Department says Epstein didn't maintain a 'client list' and it won't make any more files related to his sex trafficking investigation public. July 17, 2025: The Wall Street Journal describes a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein's 50th birthday. Trump denies writing the letter, calling it 'false, malicious, and defamatory.' The next day Trump sues the paper and media mogul Rupert Murdoch. July 18, 2025: The Trump administration asks a federal court to unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein's case in an effort to put a political crisis to rest. July 23, 2025: A judge rejects a Trump administration request to unseal transcripts from the Epstein grand jury investigation in Florida but similar requests for grand jury transcripts in the cases against Epstein and Maxwell in New York remain pending. Meanwhile, a House Oversight subcommittee voted to subpoena the Justice Department for files. The full committee issued a subpoena for Maxwell to testify before committee officials in August.