On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the much-covered nationwide injunction imposed by U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore regarding ending federal support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The three-judge panel ruled that Judge Abelson had gone “too far” in seeking to enjoin the federal government across the country.
The Fourth Circuit recognized that the executive orders “could raise concerns” about First Amendment rights that might have to be addressed down the road. However, it found Abelson’s “sweeping block went too far.” It also pointed out that the orders were not nearly as unlimited and sweeping as suggested by the district court or the media.
Trump’s orders directed federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants or contracts, and further required federal contractors to certify that they implement DEI programs which the Administration believes are discriminatory and violated federal civil rights laws. Those orders are also being challenged in other cases and include “Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing;” “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government;” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”
The district court found the orders in the Maryland case to be unconstitutionally “vague” and chilled free speech. That was a victory for the litigants, including the City of Baltimore, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United.
In their order, the panel explained that the orders were misrepresented in their scope. Judge Pamela Harris, a Biden appointee, wrote that
“The challenged Executive Orders, on their face, are of distinctly limited scope. The Executive Orders do not purport to establish the illegality of all efforts to advance diversity, equity or inclusion, and they should not be so understood.”
Judge Harris also noted that the orders “do not authorize the termination of grants based on a grantee’s speech or activities outside the scope of the funded activities.” Likewise, she noted that the certifications only require pledges not to violate existing federal anti-discrimination laws.
Nevertheless, Judge Harris noted that the officials could enforce these orders in unconstitutional ways: “Agency enforcement actions that go beyond the Orders’ narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns,” the judge added.
Chief Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee, agreed with Harris but wanted to emphasize that the enforcement of these orders should not stray from their narrow framing: “I too reserve judgment on how the administration enforces these executive orders.”
Judge Diaz, however, went beyond that scope and engaged in a degree of editorialization on the value of DEI programs.
“Despite the vitriol now being heaped on DEI, people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium. When this country embraces true diversity, it acknowledges and respects the social identity of its people. When it fosters true equity, it opens opportunities and ensures a level playing field for all. And when its policies are truly inclusive, it creates an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued. What could be more American than that?… A country does itself no favors by scrubbing the shameful moments of its past.”
The only Trump appointee pushed back on the rhetoric of her colleagues in their defense of DEI policies. Judge Allison Rushing correctly, in my view, objected to the political dimension of such dicta.
“Any individual judge’s view on whether certain Executive action is good policy is not only irrelevant to fulfilling our duty to adjudicate cases and controversies according to the law, it is an impermissible consideration. A judge’s opinion that DEI programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case.”
I also found the tenor of the opinion of Chief Judge Diaz to be concerning. The review of an injunction is not an invitation or license to express one’s personal view of the moral or social value of government programs. I share the concern of all three judges with how these orders will be enforced to protect free speech rights. However, we have a court system to address any such abuses if they were to arise. If there are “as applied” violations, they can be raised in the context of a specific case with the courts. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has signaled that it is losing patience with nationwide injunctions from district court judges.
“Despite the vitriol now being heaped on DEI, people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium. When this country embraces true diversity, it acknowledges and respects the social identity of its people. When it fosters true equity, it opens opportunities and ensures a level playing field for all. And when its policies are truly inclusive, it creates an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued. What could be more American than that?… A country does itself no favors by scrubbing the shameful moments of its past.” ~Albert Diaz (Obama appointee)
********************************
DEI is cultural Marxism and anti-white discrimination pure and simple. The only thing simpler are these woke judges who think otherwise. Don’t they have eyes?
How do you become one of these Judges?
I think the process needs to be reviewed.
“the Supreme Court has signaled that it is losing patience with nationwide injunctions from district court judges.”
EXACTLY!
A district court judge’s rulings should at best apply only in his/her district, no further.
How many of you MAGAS realize that the reason Musk is out to destroy the federal government is so that as many functions as possible can be privatized? Of course, the contracts will all go to Trump ass kissers. Isn’t that the purpose of government — to funnel as much tax money as possible to your supporters? When they hamstring government agencies by firing all of the experienced employees so that they cannot function— they think this will clear the way for Americans to accept widespread privatization. Government agencies have to fail first—isn’t it obvious even to you MAGAS?
How many of you MAGAS think it was appropriate for that white trash ignoramus from Texas to deliberately mis-gender a fellow member of Congress—twice? A fellow member of Congress who was duly elected by her constituents— is this kind of culture war behavior from a member of Congress at a public meeting appropriate —? Which is more important—MAGA warfare against transgender people or the awesome responsibility of being a member of the United States Congress? To that moron from Texas—MAGA is more important.
Did MAGA media tell you that the Tesla Trump purchased at that infomercial held on the White House lawn has 37 recall notices?
“How many of you MAGAS realize that the reason Musk is out to destroy the federal government is so that as many functions as possible can be privatized?”
Absolutely – except that it is not “privatized” it is returned to where it legitimately belongs.
Government is a necescary evil. It is and MUST be inefficient. We do not want efficient govenrment – that would be actual fascism and the Nazi’s. Nothing is more dangerous than the efficient use of FORCE.
“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
James Madison Federalist 51.
Nothing that can be done outside of governemnt should be done inside of government.
If Musk is looking to castrate government to the barest minimum – I am ENTIRELY in favor of that.
” Of course, the contracts will all go to Trump ass kissers.”
No the contracts will GO AWAY – the idea is NOT to have government contract with private businesses to do the inappropriate things govenrment is doing now – it is to NOT DO THEM.
BTW I would note that it is Democrats that have “privatized” govenrment and it is Musk Trump that are ENDING that.
USAID does nothing – except pay private actors to do often extremely strange things. But even when USAID is funding something congress actually directed it to – it does so through private actors. Musksexamination of USAID and EPA and others is turning up all kinds ofg government contracts to Democrats chronies. To the Clinton Foundation to Stacy abrahms, to NGO’s operated by members of congress.
If all Trump/Musk did was flip the contracts to Chronies – While democrats would Howl – the legal challenges would die rapidly.
Just as Biden did – Trump/Musk can award contracts to political chronies.
What Trump/Musk are doing is not changin who gets federal contracts.
They are ENDING federal spending in those areas.
Charity – is not a legitimate roll of government.
We have catholic bishops suing the federal govenrment to reinstate contracts for foreign charity that Trump has cancelled.
I have ZERO problems with catholic bishops engaging in foreign charity.
I have enormous problems with the federal govenrment paying for it.
That is coming to an end – hopefully.
“Isn’t that the purpose of government — to funnel as much tax money as possible to your supporters? ”
That has LITERALLY been the position of the democratic party since FDR.
“When they hamstring government agencies by firing all of the experienced employees so that they cannot function”
Governemtn experienced employeees ROFL.
Regardless – yes – we seek to END useless govenrment agencies.
We want government employees to return to private productive work.
The economic benefit would be enormous.
“they think this will clear the way for Americans to accept widespread privatization.”
Not privatization – litterally CLOSING the agencies and returning these functions to “the people” – not “the government”
If you wish to contribute to Trans opera’s in Columbia – give as much as you want.
But you CAN NOT use government to FORCE the rest of us to pay for the things YOU want government to do.
That is THEFT and it is immoral.
There are very few tasks that can not be done without govenment.
National defense, police, enforcing contracts and adjudicating torts are at the top of the list.
Or as the declaration of independence satate – “Securing our rights”.
“Government agencies have to fail first”
Nearly all government agencies failed long ago.
“How many of you MAGAS think it was appropriate for that white trash ignoramus from Texas to deliberately mis-gender a fellow member of Congress—twice?”
Absolutely YES,
NO ONE has the RIGHT to be called by the name on their birth cirtificate – much less the pronouns or honorifics of their choice.
If I wish to call you idiot b1tch – and you wish to call others white trash ignoramus’s – we are free to do so.
None of us has control over the speech of another.
Misgendering is just left wing nonsense.
If you check Etiquette – what you call another is a sign of YOUR respect for them. Something THEY must earn.
It is not a right. It is certainly not something you can impose on others by force.
“culture war behavior”
YOU started the culture wars.
You have fone too far and people are pushing back
Get over yourself – you are not entitled to others respect.
Representative McBride is entitled to be called Rep. McBride. Rep. McBride is entitled to that by virtue of winning a federal election.
McBride is not entitled to be called her, she, they them, him or he. That is the CHOICE of whoever is speaking.
“Did MAGA media tell you that the Tesla Trump purchased at that infomercial held on the White House lawn has 37 recall notices?”
Do I care ?
Trump bought the care – that is his choice.
You are free to buy whatever car you want.
What a dilema – buy a gas guzzler or an EV from Musk – the pre-eminent EV maker in the world. No one else is close to delivering the EV value that a Tesla does.
John Say,
Great comment and take down of Gigi!
John: I do not read what you write, so if you think you are “taking me down” by writing the extensive pieces you write several times a day–you are wasting your time. You obviously don’t have much else to do, but I DO. And, being a MAGA, facts don’t faze you–so trying to point out facts is a waste of time because the billionaires who started and fund MAGA media feed you MAGAs with spins on the facts, responses that are either outright lies or distortions of fact. For example–polls that show Trump, Musk and Trump policies are unpopular are biased. All of the daily protests and contentious town halls are invalid because George Soros is paying people to protest. The list goes on. You question any source that is not MAGA. I write what I write to express my opinions, and I note that there are thousands of other non-MAGAs who read this blog. You MAGAs cannot carry on any kind of rational discourse.
how come the “thousands of non-MAGAs who read this blog” never upvote you?
Maybe because you DON’t “express your own opinions” –you just copy and paste or try to reword what you read from MSNBC, HuffPost, CNN, RawStory, Atlantic, etc.
Only you are more hateful and vindictive and personal than your biased sources.
How many genders are there GIGI???
The number of genders depends on what country and city or state you’re talking about. For example, in Kansas there are only 2 genders. But in New York, there are 637 genders, while California boasts as many as 683. Paris, France has 213 genders. Mashhad, Iran has 1.4 genders. And on Pitcairn Island, there is only 1 gender. It’s a very complex issue that biologists are struggling to unwind. Unfortunately, because of DOGE, precious funding of mice transgender experimentation has been cut from USAID funding just when scientists were on the verge of discovering that there are an infinite number of genders.
Musk et al. are out to destroy the unconstitutional communist American welfare state.
The debacle that should have been struck down by the judicial branch at every step of its incremental inception.
Us MAGAs? Pi$$ on you sweetie, we don’t need your condescending attitude. Americans are sick and tired of the leftist garbage of DEI and want it gone, along with the waste, fraud and abuse that DOGE is finding.
Where were you when the Federal government and the Defense Department were handing out obscenely inflated grants to favored contractors? Why are you just complaining now? You make assumptions based on political bias, not truth. I hope you’re not a judge!
You really think that 1 person can destroy the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights? REALLY? Wow, what a classless thinker.
The modern Democratic Party: refusing to clap or stand for a 13-year-old American brain cancer survivor or the mom of a college student brutally raped and murdered by an illegal alien, but going to bat for a Hamas supporter who incites property destruction, harassment, vandalism, and trespassing.
https://amac.us/newsline/society/democrats-bad-month-keeps-getting-worse/
Jonathan: All of a sudden you are against nationwide injunctions by federal judges. Funny, but you didn’t complain when Republicans went “judge shopping” in Texas to get judges to enjoin some of Biden’s policies. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you think the SC should prevent nationwide injunctions. I’d say that is a strange turnabout.
And you even think Chief Justice Diaz should not express dicta on the “moral or social value of government [DEI] programs”. That’s a bridge “too far” for you. Again, you never complained when Justice Thomas used dicta in his concurrence in the “immunity” decision–suggesting that Judge Eileen Cannon dismiss the Mar-a-Lago case on the spurious grounds that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional. It should be noted that not a single other Justice signed on to Thomas’ concurrence because it was just dicta. Yet Judge Cannon dismissed that case on mere dicta. Something you never once addressed in one of your columns.
There are a lot of reasons why nationwide injunctions are justified–an issue that could be addressed in another comment. But you now claim that “the Supreme Court has signaled that its losing patience with nationwide injunctions”. That may be true for the 4 right-wing Justices, led by Thomas and Alito, but it remains to be seen whether that is the view of the rest of the Court.
But it is clear you have done a 180. You liked it when a single federal judge could enjoin some of Biden policies. But you don’t like it when federal judges block DJT’s policies and orders that are clearly contrary to the law and the Constitution. That’s not a consistent position for law professors to take. But consistency has never been your strong suit!
Dumbbell
Elections do have consequences it seems.
” All of a sudden you are against nationwide injunctions by federal judges.”
No, pretty sure Turley has written about nationwide injunctions negatively before.
There ARE actual instances in which they are appropriate – but it is extremely rare.
Today they are common place and that is ERROR.
” Funny, but you didn’t complain when Republicans went “judge shopping” in Texas to get judges to enjoin some of Biden’s policies. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you think the SC should prevent nationwide injunctions. I’d say that is a strange turnabout.”
The SC should not prevent nationwide injunctions – it should specifiy the rules that govern whether a nationwide injunction is permissible.
As to GOP judge shopping in TX – please cite specific cases ?
“And you even think Chief Justice Diaz should not express dicta on the “moral or social value of government [DEI] programs”. ”
Correct – what she was spouting was NOT dicta, it was an unconstitutional role for judges.
It is not a judges business to determine what the best outcome for the case before them is. It is not their job to decide policies, or individual or national values. It is their job to dispassionate follow the law and the constitution. It does not matter whether the judge thinks DEI programs are wonderful, mostly wonderful or garbage. All that matters is whether in the case before her the defendants are following the law and constitution. That is all.
“you never complained when Justice Thomas used dicta in his concurrence in the “immunity” decision”
Correct – Thomas wrote about the actual law and constitution – not policy preferences.
The issue is not “dicta” – the issue is that Diaz was NOT writing about the law or constitution – but her policy preferences.
Thomas was CORRECTLY noting that the Special Counsel was not lawfully appointed. Cannon dismissed the case – because Smith was NOT constitutionally appointed. If the 11th Cir Ct of appeals thought it was obvious she was wrong – they had plenty of time to reverse.
They chose not to – because had they reversed – itself far from certain, SCOTUS would have reversed them.
There is enormous case law all arround the appointments clause. Officers of the united states must be appointed by the president and confirmed by congress. ALL OF THEM. All US attorney;s must be appointed by the president and confirmed by congress. The AG has no constitutional authority to appoint anyone who is an officer of the untied states. If you go into a court representing the United States – you are an officer of the united state, and you must be appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
The Smith case is even worse than just that – as Cannon went into – Smith had no constitutional budget. There is no Special Counsel law passed by congress – the Independent counsel law was allowed to expire during Clinton – as it was likely unconstitution. Janet Reno cobbled together a set of SC regs that have no real foundation in statutory law.
Smith specifically is easily unconstitutional – as he was not appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
That would have applied to Mueller also – but it would NOT have applied to Weis, Durham, or Hurr – all were elevated from US attorney’s who are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress. SCOTUS long ago ruled that lateral moves are constitutional. That a confirmation for one position is a confirmation for ANY position covered by the appointments clause. As an example Trump can fire Bondi and appoint RFK Jr as AG – without consulting congress.
But independently of the fact that Jack Smith’s appointment violates the appointments clause. ALL SC’s since Clinton are unconstitutional – because Congress has passed no special counsel statute.
If presented with a case like that – SCOTUS would duck the issue – but it is still real – there is no SC law in the US.
BTW Cannon dismissed Smith – because he was unconstitutionally appointed.
“There are a lot of reasons why nationwide injunctions are justified”
No there are very few. In the vast majority of cases the Supreme court WANTS the same issue to be litigated in multiple circuits. It them benefits from the wisdom of many lower courts. Further if numerous lower courts agree – quite often the supreme court will not take up the case.
SCOTUS most frequently takes up cases when there is a circuit split. when the lower courts disagree.
If you think that circuit court A can greant a nationwide injunction – can Circuit court B reverse Circuit court A nationwide ?
“But you now claim that “the Supreme Court has signaled that its losing patience with nationwide injunctions”. ”
It has been signalling that for a long time – they are nearly always a very bad idea.
SCOTUS has been signaling displeasure with out of control lower courts for more than a decade.
It has thus far done nothing about it. And roberts public remarks pretend the problem does not exist.
People have lost confidence in the courts. They rightly beleive they are making it up as they go.
They rightly beleive they are not following the law or constitution.
It is SCOTUS’s job to restore trust in the courts – by reigning in lower courts.
They have failed to do so.
I am not expecting them to do so now – even though they should.
“a federal judges block DJT’s policies and orders that are clearly contrary to the law and the Constitution.”
Only in your head. Despite the left wing nout lawfare – all you have accomplished is a bit of delay to Trump’s policies – and not even much of that.
Trump is either outright winning nearly all these cases – often in the same courts that initially granted nationwide injunctiosn or winning in the appeals courts or wining at the supreme court.
Even the decision that supposedly has conservatives pissed at ACB – REQUIRED Judge ALI to actually ascertain – using contracts and invoices that he was ordering payments for contracted services that have been completed.
When he had to do that – $2B turned into about $200,000 – that has been paid and the TRO has been dropped.
#74. Congratulations Barack Hussain Obama for fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
It’s no longer recognizable. In the long long climb of history crawling from the caves, inventing writing,—> able to think of future generations the founders hit upon what had not been seen before in all of history and it worked! It built a land of plenty and opportunity for anyone who wanted it and did that through war after war after war and opposition and then along came Barry.
What a pompous a$$.
Adieu adieu, parting is such sweet …..
Congress could strip district courts of equity jurisdiction.
Let them decide issues of law only and create a fast channel to the Court of Appeals for relief in equity by not less than three judges.
“When it fosters true equity, it opens opportunities and ensures a level playing field for all. “? Substitute the work ‘equality’ for ‘equity’ in this sentence and I agree. It has been the clear intention of those who use ‘rquity’ as a goal to impose equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. This is just a new form of discrimination and cannot be allowed to stand.
It’s merit that matters.
The ‘judge shopping’ has got to go.
We can no longer have this seesaw where whenever a particular party is in power they simply block or erase every good thing from the past administration. I don’t WANT to see people put in prison, but Obama was a pox on this nation, necessarily, his appointments are the same, and linger, and we are still feeling the aftershocks all of these years later. We are NOT a communist country, and this ruling by fiat and leftist privilege has got to stop. I really, really hope SCOTUS does the right thing and shoots the living crap out of all of this as the current admin aren’t doing a damned thing previous dem admins didn’t do, within their purview (and it was all celebrated by the sycophants at the time -their is nothing honest about the modern left, and they sure don’t care about you or I or want us, the ‘commoners’, invading their space). The thing that pisses them off is that it is being done so transparently, and that is a victory for freedom in a free country.
It is literally *impossible* to view the modern left as anything but aristocratic despots at this point, top to bottom. Our Constitution really is just a piece of paper they would happily burn or wipe their behinds with. Never, ever, voting dem, ever again, I don’t care what they proclaim.
I would prefer we do not impeach judges that were given their positions by law. But they are awful. Awful in the extreme. Again, Obama and his entire cohort were likely the worst thing to happen to this country in a very, very long time. And also again – I voted for that POS the first time in 2008. I am fine if you all blame me a little but, it was grievous error.
Right on!!!
..LIKE YOU, MANY OF US PATRIOTS (incl. notables like Alan Dershowitz, Elon Musk, et al) have bemoaned voting for Obama, citing many of his Shocking Betrayals… ) and Yes, now it seems like The Core of this Network of Ongoing Lawfare Radical Left Judges was seeded back then…It doesn’t take a Genius to see that there is something very wrong when this ‘Lawfare Network’ pops up at every turn to tell the Executive Branch what to do or not to do.. bases on its personal philosophy no less….I ask Professor Turley again.. How to Deal with this?
So, I have to wonder if the first time you voted for the “Messiah” was it due to race or party? Anyway, whichever it was, glad to see that you have come to your senses. And, yes, due to him we have seen the virtue of voting for President Trump. Bidumb just showed us bad things could get if the dems were allowed to continue in power.
BREAKING NEWS
The Babylon Bee reports: Federal Judge Appoints Himself President.
“SAN FRANCISCO, CA — The Trump Administration agenda was stopped in its tracks this week after a federal judge appointed himself the new President of the United States.
“There’s nothing we can do,” said legal experts. “He’s a federal judge.”
Sources confirmed that Judge Mortimer Dithers of the Northern District of California granted himself all the powers of the executive branch in an emergency move to stop Trump. “Last night, the Constitution appeared to me in a dream and told me to do this,” said Judge Dithers. “You can’t argue with that. Also, my word on this is law because I’m a federal judge.”
President Judge Dithers has already issued several executive actions, including orders for Tesla to stop making cars, Elon Musk to punch himself in the face, and Trump to not move his head next time someone shoots at him. “This is the bidding of your new leader,” said Judge Dithers. “So let it be done, by the order of your new Federal Judge President.”
Trump later responded to the ruling on Truth Social by accusing the judge of “looking like a potato.”
At publishing time, Judge Dithers had been unseated as President by a higher court judge who declared himself President instead.”
https://theonion.com/elon-musk-offers-self-10-billion-federal-buyout/
The Onion is lame compared to Babylon Bee. There was a time when The Onion was actually great satire. But now, it’s just a name and its writers are subamateurs at satire. The Babylon Bee, in contrast, is consistnetly clever and hilarious.
Northern District of California Judge Mortimer Dithers has sometimes made controversial rulings like this, but legal experts say Judge Dithers has rarely been overruled by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Dithers is especially respected and even revered by many legal professionals:
“I once clerked for Judge Mortimer Dithers and he taught me everything I know about Constitutional law. He’s that good.”–Amy Coney Barrett
“Judge Dithers is everything that I asspire to be as a judge.”–Amy Berman Jackson
“Judge Dithers is not only one of the nation’s leading scholars in Constitutional law, but he also taught me how to perform valuations of real estate.”–Arthur Engoron
“Judge Dithers is a force of nature, a defender of Democracy, and is at the summit of integrity in the profession of law.” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
“I never heard of Judge Mortimer Dithers.” — Alan Dershowitz
“Me neither.” — Jonathan Turley
… the momentum was growing on the virtue of Judge Dithers.. U N T I L.. it hit the AOC referral… BAM.. the Explosion.. like an over-sized balloon.. the whole argument deflated to Nothing.. just in time to be neatly blown away by the opinions of Turley and Dershowitz.. Thank you.
A needed laugh this morning. As if the current administration does not afford me plenty of chuckles with all his successes. I just love waking up each day to see who President Trump has ticked off whilst I slept.
And, wondering when the SCOTUS is going to rein in the numbskulls(apologies to numbskulls) in the lower courts reaffirming that they cannot interfere in executive actions as per the Constitution. Push the lower justices back into their lanes of operation post haste before someone actually takes them seriously. It all seems like a clown show to me at this point. Whack-a-mole court system or something.
OT, Trump acting where “Joe Biden” dithered:
Today, I have ordered the United States Military to launch decisive and powerful Military action against the Houthi terrorists in Yemen. They have waged an unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism against American, and other, ships, aircraft, and drones.
Joe Biden’s response was pathetically weak, so the unrestrained Houthis just kept going. It has been over a year since a U.S. flagged commercial ship safely sailed through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, or the Gulf of Aden. The last American Warship to go through the Red Sea, four months ago, was attacked by the Houthis over a dozen times. Funded by Iran, the Houthi thugs have fired missiles at U.S. aircraft, and targeted our Troops and Allies. These relentless assaults have cost the U.S. and World Economy many BILLIONS of Dollars while, at the same time, putting innocent lives at risk.
The Houthi attack on American vessels will not be tolerated. We will use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective. The Houthis have choked off shipping in one of the most important Waterways of the World, grinding vast swaths of Global Commerce to a halt, and attacking the core principle of Freedom of Navigation upon which International Trade and Commerce depends.
Our brave Warfighters are right now carrying out aerial attacks on the terrorists’ bases, leaders, and missile defenses to protect American shipping, air, and naval assets, and to restore Navigational Freedom. No terrorist force will stop American commercial and naval vessels from freely sailing the Waterways of the World.
Yes, he’s had it being pushed around by those who just won’t stop. The democrats taught him all about being pushed around for 8 years.