Author: Daria Nivak

There is an alarming shift in Russian espionage tactics, involving the recruitment of individuals suffering from substance addiction for sabotage missions as part of a broader hybrid warfare strategy targeting Sweden and Europe, according to a March report from Sweden’s Security Service. In a recent written statement, Sweden’s Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen, SÄPO), urged local police departments in Sweden to increase surveillance and be alert for increased Russian intelligence activities, including the dissemination of disinformation, cyberattacks, and covert operations.

Drug addicts are reportedly being sought because of their low social status and subsequent effective invisibility, a valued quality in espionage operatives, says John Daly of the Jamestown Foundation. Russia relies on “legitimate” espionage methods and channels such as its embassy personnel and religious institution. It conducts covert operations and targets potential assets through online social media campaigns, he adds. Recently, though, Moscow has dramatically increased its intelligence efforts to destabilize Sweden. It may be due, in part, to the country’s accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) one year ago.

The recent SÄPO statement points out that foreign powers are using security-threatening and hybrid activities, influence, theft of technology and knowledge, mapping and threats against its opponents in an escalation of illegal intelligence activities in the new NATO member state. Last month, the publication Säkerhetspolisen noted an increased “Russian risk appetite” accompanied by threats of sabotage. In recent years Iran has used criminal networks in the country to carry out violent acts with quiet support from the Kremlin.  The heightened focus on “hybrid warfare,” suggests an evolution in tactics that include a range of activities aimed against Europe. 

“Public opinion in both Sweden and Finland was firmly against joining NATO before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. After Russia’s full-scale invasion, support for NATO membership subsequently surged,” says Daly. This is not the first public announcement from SÄPO. Last year its head, Charlotte von Essen warned at a national “People and Defense” conference that Russian intelligence activities we well as other security-threatening events would increase with NATO membership as the motivating factor for Russian hybrid warfare.  

Moscow has long relied on  the use of “expendable” agents, individuals who are used for single missions. Von Essen revealed that SÄPO has been infiltrated by Russian intelligence in the last few years. As far back as 2021, Peyman Kia, one of two brothers of Iranian origin were charged with spying for Russia for over a decade. Both held positions at SÄPO and Militära underrättelse-och säkerhetstjänsten (Military Intelligence and Security Service, MUST). Peyman’s position was in the most secret known Swedish intelligence organization, Kontoret för särskild inhämtning (Office for Special Collection, KSI). The brothers shared top secret information, according to Daly, from the Security Service and Armed Forces.  After they were caught, Peyman received a life sentence in prison and his brother, Kayyam, was given almost ten years. Russia has many “expendable” agents in place. After recruitment they are used to carry out sabotage and influence operations throughout Europe. The global intelligence community has long recognized that the Kremlin not only recruits but also provides instructions via social media platforms and places little care on their fate if caught. Day says that “their singular missions deny them knowledge of the specific breadth and depth of Russian intelligence efforts.” Putin used the Russian Orthodox Church in Sweden as a second “legitimate” asset, says the publication Expressen AB.

Russian espionage operations are not confined to Sweden; they present challenges across Europe today. Daly suggests that they also impact NATO’s larger defense challenges. Last week, the UK Defence Journal noted that Sweden takes its alliance responsibilities seriously and marked the first anniversary of its accession to NATO by deploying JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets to Poland as a contribution to NATO’s Enhanced Air Policing mission. Poland and the Baltic states are reporting similar espionage cases involving Russian assets. 

Sweden’s membership in NATO produced a decisive powershift in the Baltic region. While it may make the region safer, it also presents an increased intelligence interest from Russia and threat to Sweden’s territorial integrity and political sovereignty. Russia is adept at using politically destabilizing, hybrid tactics to create unrest and shift focus away from its other aggressive activities. In December, Washington and Stockholm signed a Memorandum of Understanding to jointly address foreign malign information influence activities and the spread of disinformation. The goal is to strengthen cooperation amid heightened geopolitical tensions. 

To bolster a quick response to counter Russian aggression, General Christopher Cavoli, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, confirmed that US troops will remain stationed across Europe.  President Trump is also advocating for NATO member countries to increase their defense spending. He proposed they allocate at least 5% of their Gross National Product (GNP) to defense, a significant rise from the current 2% guideline. The collective defense capabilities of NATO may be needed to ensure Sweden, and the Baltic states, remain free of Russian threats and interference in their internal affairs in the coming year.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

China is deepening its cooperation with Central Asia to secure access to the region’s vast supply of raw earth materials.

Kazakhstan, a major player in the uranium and critical minerals market, is one of Beijing’s main targets. The Central Asian state is positioning itself as a strategic mineral hub to attract foreign investment and diversify its partnerships. With increased geopolitical competition for copper,
zinc, lead and nickel, China is racing to deliver those technical and economic benefits to Kazakhstan.

Western democratic states are growing increasingly concerned over the level of China’s involvement in the region and its ability to exact limited control over strategic resources. Beijing offers Kazakhstani
leaders job creation, technology transfer, and new economic channels, in an attempt to replace Russia’s earlier dominance in the region. Yunis Sharifli, of the Jamestown Foundation, says that Kazakhstan aims
to balance Chinese involvement by “actively pursuing partnerships with the United States, European Union, and Japan, while incorporating local content and knowledge transfer into future agreements.”

Last June China and Kazakhstan formalized a landmark agreement to construct one of Central Asia’s most advanced copper smelting facilities by the end of 2028, capable of producing 300,000 tons of copper annually. At a cost of over $1.5 billion, the facility represents a transformative integration of upstream and downstream operations, combining access to one of the world’s largest copper mines with state-of-the-art processing technology. China will bring 1,000 jobs to the country with this single
project, according to the Astan Financial Center.

In March, Gabidulla Ospankulov, Chairperson of the Investment Committee of the Kazakh Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spoke on a panel discussing “Investments, Supply Chains, and National Legislation” at
the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada’s 2025 convention, notes Sharifli. He spoke about his country’s growing geostrategic position as a crossroads in the global supply chains among China, the
United States, and the European Union. Currently, through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) China controls approximately 70% of the world’s capacity for processing critical minerals such as lithium,
cobalt, rare earth elements, and graphite. During the last two years, China increased joint ventures with Kazakh mining companies to lock in supply deals and expand refining capabilities. As hard as Western
nations are pushing back on China’s overseas investment strategy to diversify its supply, Beijing is equally strident about ramping up its efforts to create joint ventures and control Kazakh mining companies.

Last November, China’s Jiaxin International Resources Investment Company opened its first tungsten production plant in Kazakhstan in the Almaty region, according to the Ministry of Industry and Construction of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Beijing understands Astana’s financial, technological, and human resource constraints in extracting mineral resources. Xi Jinping also recognizes that Western advanced economies need these same resources. Sharifli says that one of the most notable areas of Chinese-Kazakhstan cooperation in critical minerals thus far has been an agreement signed last month between Kazakh First Deputy Prime Minister Roman Sklyar and the PRC’s East Hope Group General Director, Changjun Meng. It establishes plans for a vertically integrated non-ferrous metals production complex for aluminum, copper, and silver. The agreement, he says, includes a $12 billion investment for the creation of approximately 10 thousand jobs and the establishment of an industrial ecosystem.

The Prime Minister of Kazakhstan says the Chinese-led project promises to introduce cutting-edge metallurgical technologies while expanding his country’s presence in international markets for finished metal products.
The OCSE Academy in Biskek says that “Kazakhstan hosts the largest number of projects and receives the largest amount of Chinese investment” with Turkmenistan the second largest recipient of Chinese
financing. Historically China focused primarily on securing access to raw materials throughout Central Asia. Today, Beijing is adapting to Kazakhstan’s strategic priorities for domestic value addition.

The United States is responding to these developments by increasing its diplomatic ties with Kazakhstan and the other Central Asian states. Washington is calling on the region not to lean too hard into China or
Russia. The US is offering development financing through the US International Development Finance Corporation to fund non-Chinese infrastructure and mineral projects. Washington also initiated talks to
collaborate on rare earth and uranium projects to thwart Chinese and Russian effort to control global critical mineral supplies.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: A Tajikistan scene (Pixabay)

Were the  Democrats right?  Was Congressional action the only way to “fix” the crisis at the Southern Border?

Of course not.

On the day of his Inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order entitled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” “Over the last 4 years,” the Order states, “the prior administration invited, administered, and oversaw an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States.  Millions of illegal aliens crossed our borders or were permitted to fly directly into the United States on commercial flights and allowed to settle in American communities, in violation of longstanding Federal laws…[t]his order ensures that the Federal Government protects the American people by faithfully executing the immigration laws of the United States.”

 The Order provides that the “Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action to…[ensure] the successful enforcement of final orders of removal.”  Further, “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure [the enforcement of] Federal laws related to the illegal entry and unlawful presence of aliens in the United States and the enforcement of the purposes of this order.”  Moreover, “[t]he Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall take all appropriate action to prioritize the prosecution of criminal offenses related to the unauthorized entry or continued unauthorized presence of aliens in the United States.”

The Order also states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall promptly take appropriate action…to ensure the efficient and expedited removal of aliens from the United States.”

According to the Congressional Research Service, “[t]he proclamation’s reliance on statutory authorities to suspend legal entry of aliens seems to rest on legal arguments that courts have explored…frequently…[t]he Supreme Court has interpreted the President’s delegated authority…broadly, and Presidents have invoked this authority in a variety of contexts to suspend the entry of certain classes of aliens.”   Which is just a roundabout way of saying that yes, the president has the authority to demand that the laws currently in existence be enforced.

What has been the result of this exercise of Presidential power?  Let’s ask CBS News.

“The number of migrants crossing the U.S. southern border illegally in President Trump’s first full month in office plunged to a level not seen in at least 25 years, according to preliminary government data obtained by CBS News. [In February 2025] Border Patrol recorded about 8,450 apprehensions of migrants who crossed into the country unlawfully between official entry points along the U.S.-Mexico border, the statistics show. On some days during a record spike in illegal crossings under the Biden administration, Border Patrol recorded more than 8,000 apprehensions in a single day…In January, Border Patrol agents at the Mexican border recorded 29,000 apprehensions, down 38% from 47,000 in December. The drop from January to February was even more pronounced, amounting to a roughly 70% decrease.”

But wait – I thought it was the system that was broken, and only Congress could fix it!

Clearly, all that was needed to “fix” the Southern Border was enforcement of the laws already on the books.

Increased enforcement at the Border itself is only one prong of the Trump Administration’s efforts to control illegal immigration.  The removal of illegal aliens, particularly those engaged in criminal activities while in the United States, has also become a priority.

“Federal officers swept into sanctuary cities on President Trump’s first full day in office,” The New York Post reported, “nabbing more than 300 illegal migrant criminals – including an attempted murderer and a child molester – to hold them for deportation…[t]he coast-to-coast dragnet – a multi-agency effort led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – picked up felons in and around Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Seattle, Washington, DC, and Miami…It was just the start of what border czar Tom Homan has promised will be a renewed effort to boot 700,000 illegal migrants who have committed crimes from the US – and sanctuary cities will not be spared.” 

Those Sanctuary Cities don’t plan on giving up their illegals anytime soon.  For instance, San Antonio, Texas, claims that “Sanctuary cities offer protection for immigrants who seek the United States in pursuit of the American Dream….this desire to seek safety and bring opportunity into our lives connects us all…Sanctuary cities provide protection and security to undocumented immigrants by forbidding city or law enforcement officials from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to inquire into the immigration status of individuals.” 

As pleasant as these sentiments may sound, according to the Department of Justice, “[f]ederal law provides that state and local jurisdictions ‘may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration officers] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.’ 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a). 

On this basis, the Justice Department has announced that “Sanctuary jurisdictions should not receive access to federal grants administered by the Department of Justice. The Department will exercise its own authority to impose any conditions of funding that do not violate applicable constitutional or statutory limitations.”

Another element of the Trump Administration’s efforts to halt illegal immigration is outlined in an Executive order entitled “Securing Our Borders.” “Deadly narcotics and other illicit materials have flowed across the border while agents and officers spend their limited resources processing illegal aliens for release into the United States,” the Order states. “These catch-and-release policies undermine the rule of law and our sovereignty, create substantial risks to public safety and security, and divert critical resources away from stopping the entry of contraband and fugitives into the United States.  We have limited information on the precise whereabouts of a great number of these illegal aliens who have entered the United States over the last 4 years. This cannot stand.  A nation without borders is not a nation, and the Federal Government must act with urgency and strength to end the threats posed by an unsecured border.” 

In this regard, “[t]he Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all appropriate action to deploy and construct temporary and permanent physical barriers to ensure complete operational control of the southern border of the United States.” Further, “[t]he Secretary shall…issue new policy guidance…including the termination of the practice commonly known as ‘catch-and-release,’ whereby illegal aliens are routinely released into the United States shortly after their apprehension for violations of immigration law.”

The Order also provides that DHS shall “[c]ease using the ‘CBP One’ application as a method of paroling or facilitating the entry of otherwise inadmissible aliens into the United States,” and “[t]erminate all categorical parole programs…including the program known as the ‘Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.’”

These directives go far in shutting the door to illegal entry through both our Southern Border, as well as through the Biden Administration’s CBP One on-line app, which allowed “travelers to apply for a provisional [entry visa] prior to arriving at a land border crossing. Travelers who apply for their [entry visa]  ahead of time will experience faster processing times to expedite entry.” 

What a great idea – allowing prospective immigrants to fill out a form on line to expedite their illegal entry into the country!  What could possibly go wrong?

Perhaps the most important Executive Order is the one entitled “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program.” Here, President Trump describes the problem in this fashion; “Over the last 4 years, the United States has been inundated with record levels of migration, including through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP)…The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees. This order suspends the USRAP until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States.” 

To that end, “[t]he Secretary of Homeland Security shall suspend decisions on applications for refugee status…”  However, “[n]otwithstanding the suspension of the USRAP…the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit aliens to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the entry of such aliens as refugees is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.”

This action closes the loophole exploited by the majority of illegal aliens who poured through our Southern Border between 2020 and 2024.  Rather than accept all claims of refugee status at face value, these claims will now be examined on a case by case basis, with an eye towards admitting people who do not pose a threat to our country.

Naturally, the challenges to these changes in immigration policy are only beginning.  But the initial results are encouraging.  For instance, according to the ACLU, “[o]n January 20, 2025, shortly after his inauguration, Donald Trump turned off the app [CBP One] which had allowed a limited number of people to make appointments to come to the border and apply for asylum. People who had made appointments months before were turned away that afternoon. On January 23, we filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on behalf of the individual plaintiffs in our case, whose January 25 appointments at the border had been cancelled. We asked that they be allowed to present themselves at the border, apply for asylum, and be paroled into the United States while their claims were adjudicated. On February 6 the court denied that motion on the ground that it had no power to order the parole of anyone into the United States.” 

Further, sanctuary cities are fighting back against the suspension of their federal funding. As described by media outlet The Center Square,  “[t]he city of Seattle is joining in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration for implementing federal policies that target jurisdictions protecting illegal immigrants. The lawsuit was initially filed on Feb. 7 and spearheaded by the County of Santa Clara and San Francisco. King County was the first jurisdiction to join the lawsuit alongside…Portland, Ore., and New Haven, Conn. The lawsuit relates to a Trump-issued executive order and a U.S. Department of Justice memorandum withholding funds and pursued enforcement actions against jurisdictions with policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.” 

However, the Trump Administration is also fighting to enforce its policies.  ABC News reports that “[t]he Justice Department is taking legal action against the state of New York and Gov. Kathy Hochul…over its alleged resistance to supporting the Trump Administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration…[Attorney General Pam] Bondi said the lawsuit was centered around New York’s Green Light Law that she claimed prohibits the state’s sheriff’s department and other agencies from sharing motor vehicle data with federal authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement.” 

New York is not the only Sanctuary state or City being sued by the federal government. According to Reuters, “[t]he U.S. Justice Department sued the state of Illinois and city of Chicago…seeking a court order blocking…several Illinois and Chicago laws that ‘interfere with and discriminate against’ [federal] immigration policies. The lawsuit said sanctuary laws such as the Illinois TRUST Act, which prevents state and local law enforcement from assisting federal civil immigration enforcement, violate the U.S. Constitution’s ‘Supremacy Clause’ that states that federal law preempts state and local laws that may conflict with it.” 

Regardless of these efforts to either protect or challenge the Biden Administration’s status quo on immigration, President Trump’s actions to control illegal immigration are wildly popular.  The Pew Research Center notes that “[t]here is widespread public support for the ramp-up of deportations. A majority of Americans also approve of an increased military presence at the U.S.-Mexico border, which is another component of Trump’s executive actions… 59% of U.S. adults say they approve of Trump increasing efforts to deport people who are living in the U.S. illegally, including 35% who strongly approve… 47% approve of Trump’s plans to cut federal funds to cities and states if they do not help federal deportation efforts. Another 52% disapprove of this… 44% approve of the administration suspending asylum applications from people seeking to live in the U.S, while 55% disapprove. 

Of course, these results generally depend upon which party you belong to. “74% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the Trump administration is doing the right amount to deport immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. Another 12% say it’s doing too little and 13% say it’s doing too much. By comparison, 73% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say the administration is doing too much on deportations, 21% say the administration’s approach is about right, and just 4% say it’s doing too little.”

It remains to be seen if the Courts are as enthusiastic about the return to Common Sense immigration policies as is the majority of the public.  But so far, the early results are encouraging.

Judge John Wilson (ret) served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Pixabay

In our book, Not Wasting a Crisis, the Lawless Biden Administration, we devote four chapters to our discussion of the absolute chaos created at the Southern Border by the polices of the Biden White House and the then-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas.  In Chapter 19, we quoted from the House Committee on Homeland Security, which stated that “[i]n the final month of FY2023,CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] recorded 269,735 encounters at the Southwest border…[t]he annual numbers proved just as catastrophic. In FY23, CBP recorded more than 2.4 million encounters at the Southwest border and more than 3.2 million encounters nationwide. Just this fiscal year, 169 individuals on the terrorist watchlist were apprehended attempting to enter the country illegally, and at least 1.7 million known gotaways have evaded apprehension since FY2021.” 

The Committee’s Report for 2024 is even worse. “Yet again,” the House Committee states, “under President Biden, ‘border czar’ and Vice President Kamala Harris, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the annual border encounter numbers have once again proven to be catastrophic. Since the start of Fiscal Year (FY) 2021, CBP has recorded more than 10.8 million encounters nationwide, including more than 8.72 million at the Southwest border. By contrast, CBP recorded around 3 million encounters nationwide, including 2.37 million at the SWB, from FY2017-2020. Nationwide border encounters this fiscal year increased nearly 50 percent compared to FY2021. Of the 2.9 million nationwide encounters in FY2024, nearly half were at ports of entry, while only 15 percent of nationwide encounters were at ports of entry in FY2021. In addition to these encounters, CBP has recorded another roughly 2 million known gotaways since the start of FY2021, roughly four times the number recorded from FY2017-2020.” 

If we accept the conventional wisdom that approximately 11 million illegal aliens resided in the United States before 2020, during the Biden Administration’s tenure, that number swelled to more than 20 million people who have invaded and occupy our country. 

As we noted in Chapter 22 of Not Wasting a Crisis, “[t]his represents one of the largest invasions in recent history.  The Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944 numbered approximately 160,000 troops, less than the total number of border crossers in any given month during the past two years…[w]hen Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, he used approximately 650,000 troops, which represents less than any average three months of border crossers in either 2022 or 2023. In fact, the invasion of our Southern Border in 2022 and 2023 is larger than Operation Barbarossa in 1941, when Hitler used 3 million troops for his invasion of Russia.” (Citations omitted.)

Much like the Roman Emperor Nero, Mayorkas fiddled while our Southern Border burned down. This is the statement made by the Homeland Security Secretary in April of 2024 in support of his request for an increase in his Department’s budget;  “Every day, the 268,000 men and women of the Department of Homeland Security carry out our mission to protect the safety and security of the American people. They protect our shores, harbors, skies, cyberspace, borders, and leaders….The dedicated public servants of DHS deserve full support, and the American people deserve the results a fully resourced DHS can deliver. The funding opportunities outlined in the President’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget for DHS are critical to meeting both goals… The President’s budget…provides funding for hiring more enforcement personnel and bolstering refugee processing. Our immigration system, however, is fundamentally broken. Only Congress can fix it. Congress has not updated our immigration enforcement laws since 1996 – 28 years ago. And, only Congress can deliver on our need for more border patrol agents, asylum officers and immigration judges, facilities, and technology.” 

Notice that one of Mayorkas’ funding priorities was “bolstering refugee processing.” But as we described in Not Wasting a Crisis, almost anyone’s claim of refugee status was accepted without question. “[M]ost illegals,” we wrote in Chapter 22, “claim status as an asylum seeker with a credible fear of persecution if they return home; receive a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court; and are released into our country. And only in the mind of Alejandro Mayorkas is this considered ‘securing the border.’”

Further, Mayorkas claimed that our immigration laws were broken, and that “only Congress can fix it.”  This was a mantra chanted by Democrats throughout the Biden years, usually used in support of a comprehensive Immigration Bill, the last version of which “provides DHS emergency authority to summarily remove or prohibit the entry of certain non-U.S. nationals…if DHS encounters an average of 4,000 non-U.S. nationals within a seven-day period…This emergency border authority…may be modified by the President under specified circumstances.” 

In other words, this bill, sponsored by Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-CT), would allow thousands of “refugees” to cross the border before the door was closed, and also allow the President (Joe Biden), to modify this “emergency authority,” potentially to allow even more “refugees” to cross the Southern Border.

Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

–Guest Editorial by Dan Perkins–

Some Federal District Court Judges claim they have the power over the executive branch and the ability to perform the president’s responsibilities under Article 2.

Recently, one judge ordered the President of the United States, who is the Commander and Chief of the military, to turn around aircraft taking illegal aliens and convicted criminals to a prison outside the United States. He wanted them brought back to America so he could decide what should happen to these felons.

As stated above, there are about 890 district judges. Not all want to control or be the President, but some have already tried.

With more than 100 federal lawsuits filed since the inauguration, Trump and his administration have been under legal fire, effectively being sued three times for every business day he has occupied the oval office. Approximately 30 of the 100 lawsuits relate to Trump’s immigration policies, while more than 20 of the cases directly challenge the actions of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. Ten of the cases challenge Trump’s policies relating to transgender people, and more than 20 cases oppose the President’s unilateral changes to federal funding, government hiring, and the structure of agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Supreme Court comprises nine justices, and every decision must be a majority decision, such as striking down or supporting a law. Keep in mind that when the framers set up the Constitution, they only established the Supreme Court. They left the expansion of lower courts to Congress and gave Congress the oversight of these lower courts.

Suppose you are charged with a serious crime and you are given the choice of a jury trial or the judge, which would you choose? You could make your plea and let a single judge decide your fate. If you choose a jury of your peers, you have 6 to 12 people determine your guilt.

Most District Courts have one judge. When that single judge makes the decision, his or her verdict is subject to appeal to a higher court, where the number of overturning the lower court decision averages 70%. The high average number of overturns is a function of just 1 judge vs 3 to 9 judges studying the case and making a more informed decision.

For those people who are suggesting that the Chief Justice do something about lower courts overreaching their duties and responsibilities and taking on managing the government policies, be aware that the Chief Justice has no power over the lower courts. It's important to look at the current attacks on the administration with the number of cases pending in the lower courts. Remember that if the lower court issues a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO), all the activities of the government on that issue must stop.

Here are my suggestions

1: Each of the top 5 categories could be rolled into one category. For example, all 50 cases under the Government structure and personnel heading could be reviewed, and duplicates could be looked for. After the duplicates are eliminated, the remaining cases would be rolled up into one case and presented to the high court for review. This consolidation could significantly streamline the legal process, reduce the burden on the administration, and expedite the resolution of cases. The same would be true of the other 4 categories.

2: We advocate for a law that ensures the fairness of jurisdiction limits. Specifically, we propose that district courts can only rule within their own district. Any cases in the district must restrict their TRO to their district and dismiss those with national TRO. This measure is designed to ensure that no district will be allowed to issue a nationwide TRO in the future, thereby reassuring the American people about the equitable distribution of legal power. If Congress makes no changes in the use of the TRO, I anticipate that perhaps 100 cases will be dismissed over time. This process will undoubtedly take time, perhaps a long time, and this is what the Democrats want. However, it’s crucial to recognize the urgency of the situation. It’s time to clean up the courts and get rid of Lawfare. It’s time to make America Fair Again, and this requires immediate action.

Dan Perkins is a nationally syndicate radio and TV talk show host. His current listener base is over 2 million people a month. He is the author of 9 books; his current book is Sad Eyes and is available on Amazon and through your local bookstore. His web site is DanPerkinsmedia.org

Is Russia preparing for long-term war with the West? Military analysts in Washington this week are evaluating the impact of President Putin’s recent acceleration of societal militarization. He appears to be bolstering his country’s mobilization capacity while simultaneously reducing access to higher education. The question is — to what end? 

The Kremlin is employing progressively aggressive conscription tactics and increasing the pace and breadth of its expansion of military training in civilian education. It is just in time for the April spring draft. The goal, according to Hlib Parfonov writing in the Eurasian Daily Monitor, is to create a long-term competent military force. He points out that to reinforce centralized military control, Russia is opening more Military Training Centers and reopening command academies. The move is viewed as a response to heavy losses in Ukraine and a desperate attempt to replenish its officer and non-commissioned ranks.

“[Western] Europe’s lack of preparation risks leaving it underprepared if tensions with Russia continue to rise,” says Parfonov. Worse yet, Russia may be learning from the Ukraine war experience in how to implement comprehensive reforms, that include providing universal military training for all students and military departments in universities and expansion of reserve mobilization structures. 

Last week Russian riot police and military enlistment officers conducted a joint raid on the Moscow Spirit Fitness Club in search of people evading military enlistment. Reports indicate that the Kremlin is calling for the expansion of this type of raid across the country. It left those in the Moscow club with their faces planted on the floor, and separated by ethnicity, while officers verified their military registration. 

At a time when much of the world is moving forward with advanced technologies, Russia is undergoing a “reverse industrialization,” says Parfonov. Instead of expanding access to higher education, the Kremlin is promoting vocational training and military service. Last month the Asian daily Monitor reported that those who were able to study in institutions of higher learning had to comply with new mobilization and military training programs instituted by the Kremlin. 

Army Help, a Russian publication, says that the concept of military training programs within civilian educational institutions replicates the former Soviet Union’s “military departments,” where students would go to avoid conscription. A change in the present system, is the addition of a new Russian government resolution calling for the consolidation of all military departments and faculties into “Military Training Centers” to more effectively support Russia’s defense and security. 

The number of centers increased from 93 in 2019, to 137 last year, with more than 60,000 students participating in training under them this year. “Given the scale of Russia’s losses in its war against Ukraine and the need for a continuous flow of trained reserves, this system plays a crucial role in sustaining the country’s military capabilities, according to the January edition of the Bulletin of Military Education. 

Putin lacks junior and mid-level commanders in his armed forces. The Russian system employs top-down control and emphasizes centralization. This is due, in part, to poorly educated troops under the dictatorship, with authoritarian forms of control common throughout the country. These critical lower-level commanders form what is known in Russian as a core part of ensuring “Befehlstaktik,” or the execution of detailed orders. 

The pace of similar military programs outside of Russia is slow. Poland is the only Western country to have a  program with about 16,000 graduates. Other European nations, including Germany, are reassessing their need for similar style training given their past reliance on NATO forces. In recent years, however, Europe has been trending toward the downsizing of its armed forces. It resulted in severe personnel shortages. In Germany, its military recruiting currently falls short by over 260,000, due to the suspension of compulsory military service in 2011. 

Even if Berlin reinstates a program in response to the war in Ukraine, it will take years to implement. Other European states are also slow in moving toward programs to increase and train new military personnel. As of March 2025, Ukraine has only limited military training departments in its universities. Although starting in September, it will finally institute universal military training for all university students in the country. 

Russia, with its rapid militarization efforts, recognized the value of a trained reserve force. The ongoing war in Ukraine in 2025 raises concerns about Europe’s response to the ongoing conflict, should tensions rise with a new Russian escalation.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Pixabay

Can the Courts block President Trump from firing US Government Officials?

Isn’t Donald Trump the “boss” of Executive Branch employees?  Can’t he fire and hire these workers at will?

As with so many legal questions, the answer is – it depends.

As far as Donald Trump is concerned, he has the unequivocal power to control those employed by the Executive Branch. By his Executive Order “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce,” the President asserts that “Article II of the United States Constitution vests the President with the sole and exclusive authority over the executive branch, including the authority to manage the Federal workforce to ensure effective execution of Federal law.”  

 President Trump explains that “[a] critical aspect of this executive function is the responsibility to maintain professionalism and accountability within the civil service.  This accountability is sorely lacking today.  Only 41 percent of civil service supervisors are confident that they can remove an employee who engaged in insubordination or serious misconduct.  Even fewer supervisors –- 26 percent — are confident that they can remove an employee for poor performance.”

To remedy this situation, the President asserts that “[a]ccountability is essential for all Federal employees, but it is especially important for those who are in policy-influencing positions.  These personnel are entrusted to shape and implement actions that have a significant impact on all Americans.  Any power they have is delegated by the President, and they must be accountable to the President, who is the only member of the executive branch, other than the Vice President, elected and directly accountable to the American people.  In recent years, however, there have been numerous and well-documented cases of career Federal employees resisting and undermining the policies and directives of their executive leadership.  Principles of good administration, therefore, necessitate action to restore accountability to the career civil service, beginning with positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.”

Therefore, “[p]rinciples of good administration…necessitate action to restore accountability to the career civil service, beginning with positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.”

But what exactly does Article II of the US Constitution say? “[The President shall] have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Court of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” 

It wasn’t until 1926 that the US Supreme Court decided affirmatively what authority Article II gives the President over the dismissal of Executive Branch employees, in the case of Myers v. United States.  When a postmaster challenged his removal from office, Chief Justice (and former US President) William Howard Taft, took the opportunity to state that “Article II grants to the President the executive power of the Government, i. e. , the general administrative control of those executing the laws, including the power of appointment and removal of executive officers—a conclusion confirmed by his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” 

Chief Justice Taft seemed to believe this power to be fairly extensive, writing that “[t]here is nothing in the Constitution which permits a distinction between the removal of the head of a department or a bureau, when he discharges a political duty of the President or exercises his discretion, and the removal of executive officers engaged in the discharge of their other normal duties. The imperative reasons requiring an unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates in their most important duties must, therefore, control the interpretation of the Constitution as to all appointed by him.”

According to Justia, “the result of [the Myers decision] was a rule that, as was immediately pointed out, exposed the so-called ‘independent agencies’ – the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the like – to presidential domination.”

This “loophole” led to the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s  Executor v. United States.  Humphrey was a member of the Federal Trade Commission, who was removed from his post by President Franklin Roosevelt over a difference of opinion regarding public policy.  In distinguishing the Myers case, Justice George Sutherland wrote that ‘[a] postmaster is an executive officer restricted to the performance of executive functions. He is charged with no duty at all related to either the legislative or judicial power. The actual decision in the Myers case finds support in the theory that such an office is merely one of the units in the executive department and, hence, inherently subject to the exclusive and illimitable power of removal by the Chief Executive, whose subordinate and aide he is. . . . It goes no farther; much less does it include an officer who occupies no place in the executive department and who exercises no part of the executive power vested by the Constitution in the President.’”

However, a member of an independent agency, such as the Federal Trade Commission, was entitled to different treatment by the Chief Executive. “The Federal Trade Commission is an administrative body created by Congress to carry into effect legislative policies embodied in the statute,” Justice Sutherland wrote. “Such a body cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or eye of the executive. Its duties are performed without executive leave and, in the contemplation of the statute, must be free from executive control…We think it plain under the Constitution that illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the President in respect of officers of the character of those just named, [the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Court of Claims]…”

The reason to treat an appointed member of an independent agency differently than one appointed to a department of the Executive branch lies in the separation of powers enumerated in the US Constitution. The Court noted that “[t]he authority of Congress, in creating quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies, to require them to act in discharge of their duties independently of executive control cannot well be doubted; and that authority includes, as an appropriate incident, power to fix the period during which they shall continue in office, and to forbid their removal except for cause in the meantime. For it is quite evident that one who holds his office only during the pleasure of another, cannot be depended upon to maintain an attitude of independence against the latter’s will. . . .”

Therefore, “[w]hether the power of the President to remove an officer shall prevail over the authority of Congress to condition the power by fixing a definite term and precluding a removal except for cause, will depend upon the character of the office…we hold that no removal can be made during the prescribed term for which the officer [of an independent agency] is appointed, except for one or more of the causes named in the applicable statute.”

The distinction between these two cases and the status of the affected employee becomes clear.  If you are an employee of the Parks Department, which is a branch of the Department of the Interior, or if you work for Veteran’s Affairs, which is a Cabinet-level department of the Executive branch, or even if you are an inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services,  under the authority of the Myers case, you can be removed from office by the President.

However, if you are an appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission or the head of the Office of the Special Counsel, then depending on the language of the statute Congress enacted to create your office, you can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Humphrey’s Executor has recently been cited as the underlying basis for a temporary restraining order (TRO) granted to Hampton Dellinger, a Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, who received a notice of termination from the Director of the Presidential Personnel Office.  Dellinger sought an order reversing that termination from the District Court in Washington, DC.

In granting his application, the lower court noted that “[t]he Office of Special Counsel is an independent agency originally created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978… [to] ‘safeguard’ federal civil service employees ‘who “blow the whistle” on illegal or improper official conduct.’” (Citations omitted.)  As such, “[t]he effort by the White House to terminate the Special Counsel without identifying any cause plainly contravenes the statute, which states, ‘[t]he Special Counsel may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’ 5 U.S.C. § 1211(b). This language expresses Congress’s clear intent to ensure the independence of the Special Counsel and insulate his work from being buffeted by the winds of political change.”

Citing to the US Supreme Court, the District Court stated that the high court has previously upheld “its observation in Humphrey’s Executor…that Congress’s ability to impose removal restrictions ‘will depend upon the character of the office’…[h]ere we have a statute that incorporates Congress’s [intention to place] restrictions on removal.”  Thus, Dellinger’s request for a restraining order was granted, and he was not removed from office.

When the DC Court of Appeals refused to intervene, the Trump Administration turned to the US Supreme Court – who also refused to intervene.

“[T]his Court typically does not have appellate jurisdiction over TROs,” the Court wrote. “In light of the foregoing, the application to vacate the order of the United States District Court…is held in abeyance.” 

In other words, the Supreme Court punted, awaiting further action by the District Court, who planned to hold a hearing to give both sides a full opportunity to be heard. Yet, not all the Justices wanted to wait for the District Court’s fact finding.

“The [District] court effectively commanded the President and other Executive Branch officials to recognize and work with someone whom the President sought to remove from office,” Justice Neil Gorsuch writes. “To be sure, throughout the Nation’s history, various presidentially appointed officials like Mr. Dellinger have contested their removal – and courts have heard and passed on their claims. But those officials have generally sought remedies like backpay, not injunctive relief like reinstatement.”

On this basis, Justice Gorsuch would have vacated the TRO and remanded the case to consider what other remedies were available to Bellinger other than reinstatement.

There will be other government officials who Donald Trump will seek to remove from office, and some of those persons will be employed by “independent agencies,” and will be subject to statutory requirements controlling the basis for their removal.  This will certainly serve as an impediment to their removal from office.

But in the meantime, the President is free to remove whatever other employees he chooses from their jobs.

Stay tuned – this battle has only just begun. 

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

For many who supported Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the past two months have been breathtaking.  Of course, for those progressive Democrats who preferred “Sleepy Joe” Biden’s term in office, every day brings a new horror.

During an interview with CNN‘s Jake Tapper, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) summed up the perspective of the left: “Donald Trump is a chaos agent…[h]e’s unleashing chaos on the American people. We are not losing in court. We are actually winning in court. The Trump administration is losing. We are partnering on at least 79 different lawsuits that have been brought related to about 35 different illegal or unconstitutional executive orders. And the Trump administration continues to lose in court, after court, after court… Donald Trump is intentionally unleashing extremism and outrageous things on the American people to try to disorient everyday Americans. Donald Trump is not a king. We will never bend the knee. Not now, not ever.” 

Remember when the party out of power was called the “loyal opposition?”

Clearly, Representative Jeffries used some extreme rhetoric of his own during his statement, particularly in his discussion of the Trump Administration’s losses in court, reversals which are allegedly based on the President’s “illegal and unconstitutional” Executive Orders.

In a previous article, we discussed that these “losses” are exaggerated.  The Executive Order on Birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens was objectively unconstitutional; the freezing of funds for foreign aid is not.

One activity that has led to some confusion (at least among Democrats) is the firing of various government officials such as the heads of various agencies and governmental offices, an example of what Jeffries and his fellow progressives call “chaos.” (For some reason, no Democrat, except for maybe Texas Representative Henry Cueller, ever described the situation at the Southern Border during the Biden years as “chaotic”; but that is a subject for another time.)

“In an unprecedented purge of the military’s senior leadership,” CNN reports, “President Donald Trump  announced he was dismissing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Q. Brown and replacing him with Air Force Lt. Gen. John Dan ‘Razin’ Caine…[m]inutes later, [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth released a statement announcing he’d fired Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the chief of the Navy…Hegseth called Franchetti a ‘DEI hire’ in his 2024 book, in which he wrote: ‘If naval operations suffer, at least we can hold our heads high. Because at least we have another first! The first female member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — hooray.’” 

Then there was this story from the Associated Press; “The Trump administration has fired about 1,000 newly hired National Park Service employees who maintain and clean parks, educate visitors and perform other functions as part of its broad-based effort to downsize government. The firings, which weren’t publicly announced but were confirmed by Democratic senators and House members, come amid what has been a chaotic rollout of an aggressive program to eliminate thousands of federal jobs.” 

According to Reuters, “[t]he campaign by President Donald Trump and his adviser Elon Musk to radically cut back the U.S. bureaucracy [has resulted in the] firing [of] more than 9,500 workers who handled everything from managing federal lands to caring for military veterans. Workers at the departments of Interior, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture and Health and Human Services had their employment terminated…[t]he firings, reported by Reuters and other major U.S. media outlets, are in addition to the roughly 75,000 workers who have taken a buyout that Trump and Musk have offered to get them to leave voluntarily, according to the White House. That equals about 3% of the 2.3 million person civilian workforce.” 

Of course, not everyone fired during this allegedly “chaotic” realignment is taking their severance pay and looking for another job.  Several, particularly the heads of certain federal agencies, have sought to keep their jobs with court actions – and some have been successful.

Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow