To show the importance of the Slaughter Case, 90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED, greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-06-29 10:24:00 — trumpstruth.org

Donald Trump Claims Overruling of 90 Years of Precedent “Greatly Increases Presidential Power”

In a recent statement, President Donald J. Trump declared, “90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED, greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed!” This assertion highlights Trump’s ongoing focus on expanding executive authority and his willingness to frame judicial decisions as sweeping victories for presidential power.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claim

Trump’s statement suggests that a major legal precedent—referred to as the “Slaughter Case”—has been entirely overturned, resulting in a significant boost to the powers of the presidency. However, the claim that 90 years of precedent has been “completely and unequivocally overruled” is an exaggeration. Legal experts and fact-checkers have noted that while Supreme Court decisions can alter interpretations of presidential authority, it is rare for such rulings to entirely erase decades of established law in a single stroke.

Trump’s History of Exaggerating Legal Victories

This statement fits a pattern in Trump’s public communications, where he frequently frames court decisions as total vindications or unprecedented expansions of his authority. By emphasizing the “greatly increasing Presidential Power,” Trump seeks to portray himself as a uniquely empowered leader, even when the legal reality is often more nuanced.

Conclusion

President Trump’s assertion that 90 years of precedent has been “completely and unequivocally overruled” to “greatly increase Presidential Power” is an overstatement that distorts the scope and impact of recent judicial decisions. As with many of his public statements, Trump uses hyperbolic language to advance a narrative of personal and presidential empowerment, often at odds with the factual record. Readers should approach such claims with scrutiny and seek out reliable fact-checking to understand the true implications of legal developments.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/39618

Outcry over supreme court decision to grant Trump power to fire agency chiefs | US supreme court

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-06-29 12:13:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump Hails Supreme Court Ruling Expanding Presidential Power to Fire Independent Agency Leaders

Donald Trump celebrated a landmark Supreme Court decision that grants presidents sweeping authority to fire leaders of independent federal agencies, calling it a “big win” on Truth Social. The ruling in Trump v Slaughter overturns nearly 90 years of precedent that had limited executive power, and it has sparked widespread concern among labor advocates, unions, and consumer groups about the future of American democracy.

Trump’s Record of Firings

During his second presidential term, Trump exercised his authority by firing several leaders of independent agencies. Those dismissed included National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve on the board; Susan Tsui Grundmann of the Federal Labor Relations Authority; Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Deirdre Hamilton of the National Mediation Board. The firing of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in March last year was the catalyst for the Supreme Court case. Slaughter stated she was fired “because I have a voice. And he [Trump] is afraid of what I’ll tell the American people.” Trump also removed another Democratic FTC commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, without providing specific cause beyond stating their “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] administration’s priorities.”

Impact of the Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision overturns the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling, which had protected independent agency staff from presidential removal without cause. Critics argue that this new precedent effectively prioritizes the president’s political preferences over the independence and integrity of federal agencies. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, described the decision as “egregiously wrong,” warning that it “promises to unleash only chaos” and gives the president “far greater power than ever before.”

Concerns Over Authoritarianism and Corruption

Legal experts and advocacy groups warn that the ruling erodes essential guardrails against corruption and political interference. Rachel Rossi of Alliance for Justice called it a move that hands the president “the keys to be even more authoritarian,” while Michael Sozan of the Center for American Progress said it puts “millions of Americans at risk” by allowing undue political pressure over agencies designed to be insulated from such coercion.

Conclusion

Trump’s celebration of the Supreme Court’s decision underscores his support for expanded executive power and his willingness to remove agency leaders whose priorities differ from his own. As critics warn of the long-term consequences for democracy and government integrity, the ruling marks a significant shift in the balance of power in Washington, with implications that will extend far beyond Trump’s tenure.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/29/supreme-court-trump-agency-firings-slaughter-ftc

Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Request to Appeal $5 Million Verdict in E. Jean Carroll Case

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-06-29 10:51:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Dismisses Carroll Verdict as “Fake Case” After Supreme Court Declines Appeal

The Supreme Court on Monday declined President Trump’s request to review a $5 million civil judgment against him, a case in which a jury found in 2023 that he sexually abused and defamed writer E. Jean Carroll. The justices gave no explanation for their decision, and no public dissents were noted.

Trump’s Response: “Fake Case” and Continued Attacks

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump posted on social media, calling Carroll’s lawsuit “a Fake Case.” He also vowed to “continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength.” This reaction is consistent with Trump’s ongoing pattern of dismissing legal actions against him as politically motivated or baseless, despite the unanimous jury verdict.

History of False Claims and Defamation

The jury found that Trump had defamed Carroll by posting statements on social media calling her case “a complete con job” and “a Hoax and a lie.” Throughout the legal proceedings, Trump denied Carroll’s allegations. The jury also heard from two additional women who claimed Trump had assaulted them, as well as an excerpt from the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump is heard bragging about grabbing and kissing women without consent.

Legal Filings and Appeals

After the verdict, Trump appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the trial judge erred by allowing testimony from the two women and the tape excerpt. In December 2024, a three-judge panel upheld the verdict, finding that Trump failed to show the evidence harmed his right to a fair trial. Trump’s lawyers described the evidence as “multiple decades-old, unverified and unrelated allegations” and argued that the appeals court had incorrectly applied the law.

Ongoing Legal Battles

A second case stemming from Carroll’s allegations could also reach the Supreme Court. In January 2024, a separate jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million in damages for defaming her in 2019 after she accused him of rape. Trump’s legal team has indicated plans to ask the justices to hear that case as well.

Conclusion

Trump’s repeated public statements attacking Carroll and the judicial process—labeling the lawsuit a “Fake Case” and the defamation claim “ridiculous”—stand in stark contrast to the findings of two unanimous juries and multiple court rulings. Monday’s Supreme Court decision likely marks the end of Trump’s legal efforts to contest the jury verdict that found he assaulted and defamed Carroll, reinforcing the accountability established by the courts.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-sexual-assault.html

Live updates: Supreme Court rules on mail ballot timing; Trump says Iran wants to meet

Administration News — 2026-06-29 09:16:00 — thehill.com

Trump Claims Iran Requested Meeting Amid Supreme Court Mail-In Ballot Ruling

President Trump said Monday on Truth Social that Iran has requested a meeting, set for Tuesday in Doha, as the Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots may be counted even if they arrive after Election Day. The statement comes at a moment of heightened political tension, with the Court’s decision likely to influence the ongoing debate over election integrity and voting procedures.

Trump’s Statement on Iran

According to the excerpt, President Trump claimed that Iran has requested a meeting, which is reportedly scheduled for Tuesday in Doha. This assertion, made on his social media platform, comes without additional context or confirmation from Iranian officials within the provided material. The timing of this claim coincides with significant domestic legal developments, potentially drawing attention away from the Supreme Court’s high-profile ruling.

Supreme Court Ruling on Mail-In Ballots

The Supreme Court’s decision, released Monday morning, allows mail-in ballots to be counted even if they arrive after Election Day. This ruling is expected to impact the administration and outcome of upcoming elections, as it addresses a contentious issue that has been the subject of repeated political debate.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Record

While President Trump’s statement about Iran’s request for a meeting is presented as fact in his Truth Social post, the excerpt does not provide corroborating evidence or details from other parties involved. Trump has a history of making bold claims on social media, some of which have later been disputed or contradicted by official sources. In this instance, readers should be aware that the assertion is solely attributed to Trump, with no independent verification included in the provided material.

Conclusion

President Trump’s announcement regarding a supposed Iranian meeting comes at a critical juncture, as the Supreme Court’s ruling on mail-in ballots is set to shape the electoral landscape. As with many of Trump’s public statements, it is important to scrutinize the available facts and seek further confirmation before accepting such claims at face value. The intersection of major legal decisions and high-profile international assertions underscores the need for careful attention to accuracy and context in political reporting.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5944338-iran-us-meeting-qatar-assets/

New nuclear reactors for America 250 come with safety concerns : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-06-29 04:00:00 — www.npr.org

President Trump set an ambitious goal for the U.S. nuclear industry, calling for at least three new experimental nuclear reactors to be built by July 4, 2026, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Shortly after signing an executive order to formalize this objective, the Department of Energy launched the Reactor Pilot Program, which was designed to help companies build and operate test reactors quickly—primarily by drastically reducing the regulatory requirements for such projects.

Rapid Rollout and Regulatory Concerns

The program has triggered a race among American companies, with two already reaching the milestone of bringing their reactors online in less than a year. On June 4, Antares Nuclear announced its reactor had gone critical, and Valar Atomics followed on June 18, with its new reactor core producing tens of kilowatts of heat in the Utah desert.

While some in the industry are enthusiastic about the speed and potential for innovation, others are raising alarms about the risks. The Department of Energy rewrote safety and security standards to expedite approvals, arguing that the eliminated regulations were “unnecessary” and that safety remains intact. However, critics point out that the department consulted only with companies, not the public, and exempted the new reactors from environmental reviews.

Expert Warnings

Skeptics, including Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, warn that slashing regulations reverses decades of hard-won safety lessons in the nuclear industry. Lyman described the initiative as “essentially an exercise in public relations” and cautioned that deregulation could erode standards for security and environmental monitoring, especially as more of these small reactors are deployed across the country.

Conclusion

President Trump’s push for rapid nuclear innovation has undeniably accelerated the pace of reactor development in the United States. However, the decision to cut regulatory safeguards and bypass public consultation has sparked significant concern among nuclear safety experts. As the nation moves forward with this ambitious agenda, the balance between innovation and safety remains a critical issue for policymakers and the public alike.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/06/29/nx-s1-5847944/new-nuclear-reactors-america-250-safety-concerns

WTI CRUDE – $69, and heading down. This is less than it was prior to the start of the Denuclearization of Iran! President DJT

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-06-29 06:23:00 — trumpstruth.org

Donald Trump Touts Oil Prices as Evidence of Iran Policy Success

In a recent statement, Donald Trump claimed, “WTI CRUDE – $69, and heading down. This is less than it was prior to the start of the Denuclearization of Iran!” Trump’s assertion links the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil to his administration’s approach toward Iran, specifically referencing what he calls the “Denuclearization of Iran.”

Fact-Checking Trump’s Oil Price Claim

Trump’s statement suggests that the price of WTI crude oil is lower now than it was before his administration’s efforts regarding Iran’s nuclear program. However, a review of historical oil prices and the timeline of U.S. policy actions toward Iran reveals a more complex picture. Oil prices fluctuate due to a wide range of global factors, including supply and demand, geopolitical tensions, and market speculation. While Trump attributes the drop in oil prices to his Iran policy, experts and market analysts have pointed to other significant influences, such as changes in global production levels and economic trends unrelated to U.S.-Iran relations.

Exaggerating the Impact of U.S. Policy

By stating that the current price is “less than it was prior to the start of the Denuclearization of Iran,” Trump exaggerates the direct impact of his administration’s actions on global oil prices. There is no clear evidence that U.S. policy toward Iran alone is responsible for the recent price of WTI crude. In fact, oil prices have experienced volatility due to a variety of factors, including OPEC decisions, shifts in global demand, and broader economic developments.

Conclusion: Oversimplifying a Complex Issue

Trump’s claim about oil prices and the “Denuclearization of Iran” oversimplifies a complex global market. While he credits his administration’s policies for the decline in WTI crude prices, the reality is that multiple factors influence oil markets. Readers should be cautious about accepting such claims at face value and consider the broader context behind fluctuations in oil prices.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/39610

The US supreme court just put the lives of 1.3 million immigrants in danger | Heba Gowayed

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-06-29 05:00:00 — www.theguardian.com

Trump’s False and Baseless Claims About Immigrants Highlighted as Supreme Court Backs Administration’s Move to End TPS

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) has exposed over 1.3 million immigrants to potential deportation, including 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. This move, described as the largest single assault on immigrants in contemporary U.S. history, is part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to cancel legal protections for vulnerable populations.

Trump’s False and Disparaging Statements

Central to the controversy are statements made by Donald Trump about Haitian immigrants. According to the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Trump has made the false and baseless claim that Haitian immigrants “eat dogs” and that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the nation. These remarks have been widely condemned as both factually incorrect and deeply disparaging.

Despite these statements, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, argued that such presidential statements are not “overtly racial” but rather “expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications.” This rationale has drawn criticism from lower courts and immigration advocates, who point to evidence of racial animus in the administration’s actions and rhetoric.

Policy Impact and Human Cost

The Trump administration’s push to terminate TPS for 13 countries, including Haiti, El Salvador, and Somalia, marks a dramatic shift from decades of bipartisan renewal of these protections. The administration’s justification for ending TPS has been challenged in court, with Judge Ana Reyes highlighting that the process must ensure people are not sent to their deaths. She cited the contradiction between the government’s claim that Haiti is safe and its own “Level 4: Do Not Travel” advisory for the country due to extreme violence and instability.

The decision leaves hundreds of thousands of people—many of whom have lived in the U.S. for decades, built families, and contributed billions to the economy—at risk of deportation to countries the U.S. itself recognizes as unsafe.

Broader Immigration Crackdown

The attack on TPS comes amid a broader dismantling of the U.S. asylum system under the Trump administration. The Supreme Court also upheld the administration’s policy of blocking asylum seekers at the Mexico border and supported measures that make legal residency harder to obtain. These policies are expected to reduce legal migration by 30% to 55% and expand the reach of detention and deportation.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s record on immigration is marked not only by sweeping policy changes but also by repeated false and inflammatory statements about immigrants. The Supreme Court’s decision to defer to the executive’s discretion on TPS, despite evidence of racial animus and factual inaccuracies in Trump’s statements, leaves millions vulnerable and underscores the power of presidential rhetoric and policy in shaping the lives of immigrants in America.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/29/supreme-court-immigration-rulings-danger

WATCH: Trump speaks at Faith and Freedom Coalition policy conference

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-06-26 12:23:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Makes Series of Controversial Claims and Attacks at Faith and Freedom Coalition Event

At the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s annual conference, President Donald Trump delivered a speech filled with sweeping claims about religion in America, attacks on political opponents, and dire warnings about policy changes in New York City.

Claims About Religion and His Presidency

Trump asserted that under his leadership, “religion is back in our country, bigger and stronger than it has been in many, many years.” He referenced unspecified reports suggesting an increase in religious practice and credited his administration with establishing a White House Faith Office, ending what he described as government persecution of Christians, and “restoring Christmas.” Trump insisted that none of these developments would have occurred if Democrats had won the 2016 or 2024 elections, characterizing President Joe Biden’s administration as “so bad” and “so evil.” Notably, Biden is a practicing Catholic who regularly attended Mass while in office, while Trump does not regularly attend religious services.

Attacks on Political Opponents

During his remarks, Trump targeted Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska for opposing his SAVE America Act, which would create stricter ID standards for voters. “We have a few Republicans that are fighting it — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska,” Trump said. “You should call her and tell her to get on the ball. She’ll never win another election. I can tell you.” Murkowski has argued that the bill could undermine state oversight of elections and potentially disenfranchise legitimate voters.

Trump also disparaged New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s efforts to make rent more affordable, claiming, “These buildings will soon turn into ghettos and slums,” and arguing that the policy would turn the city “third world.” He was referring to a citywide rent freeze for certain lease renewals, a move affecting nearly a million rent-stabilized apartments. Trump warned that similar left-wing policies could spread beyond New York, describing recent election winners as “hardcore, godless communists” rather than “social democrats.”

Comments on International Incidents

Addressing a recent drone strike on a cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz, which he blamed on Iran, Trump said, “We knocked down three of them. One of them, I guess — we didn’t miss it. Nobody saw it coming.” He called the strike a violation of a ceasefire agreement between Iran and the United States and claimed Iran still has “some capability, not much.”

Conclusion

Trump’s speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition event showcased his characteristic blend of self-congratulation, attacks on political opponents, and dire predictions about his rivals’ policies. His remarks included several unsubstantiated claims about the state of religion in America and the effects of Democratic policies, as well as personal attacks on both Republican and Democratic officials. As the political landscape continues to shift, Trump’s rhetoric remains a focal point for both his supporters and critics.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-trump-speaks-at-faith-and-freedom-coalition-policy-conference

Trump threatens 100% tax on European imports if countries impose tax on digital services

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-06-26 12:30:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump Threatens 100% Tariff on Countries Taxing U.S. Digital Services, Targets Europe

President Donald Trump on Friday issued a sweeping threat to impose a 100% tariff on imports from any country that levies a tax on digital services provided by American companies. In a post on social media, Trump specifically targeted European countries, claiming they are discussing the “imminent” implementation of such taxes.

“Please let this statement serve to represent that any Country that imposes such a Tax will immediately be met with a 100% TARIFF on any and all Goods sent to the United States of America,” Trump wrote. He further asserted that this new tariff threat would override any previously negotiated trade deals, and he singled out European nations as the primary focus of his warning.

Trump’s Ongoing Disputes with Foreign Digital Taxes

Trump has repeatedly opposed foreign efforts to tax or regulate major American technology companies. Last year, he threatened new tariffs on any country moving forward with digital services taxes, arguing that such measures “are all designed to harm, or discriminate against, American Technology.”

Despite a recent trade agreement between the U.S. and the European Union that caps most tariffs on EU exports at 15%, digital taxes were not included in the deal. The issue remains a significant point of contention between the two sides.

Unclear Path Forward for Trump’s Threat

While the U.S. government has previously investigated digital services taxes under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the excerpt notes it is unclear how Trump would implement his threat or whether the tariffs would be applied broadly or targeted at specific nations.

Britain, which left the EU, has imposed a 2% digital services tax since 2020 on revenues earned by large international tech companies from U.K. users. The British government has justified the tax by pointing to a “misalignment between the place where profits are taxed and the place where value is created,” aiming to ensure that large multinational businesses contribute fairly to public services.

Conclusion

Trump’s latest threat marks a continuation of his combative stance on international digital tax policies, particularly those affecting American tech giants. By vowing to impose steep tariffs on all goods from countries enacting such taxes, Trump is escalating trade tensions and challenging existing agreements, while leaving open questions about how these threats would be enforced. The dispute underscores ongoing global friction over how to tax digital commerce in an increasingly interconnected economy.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-threatens-100-tax-on-european-imports-if-countries-impose-tax-on-digital-services

White House Releases Images of the Trump ‘Patriot Passport’

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-06-27 14:06:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Unveils “Patriot Passport” Featuring His Likeness for Nation’s 250th Anniversary

President Trump on Friday revealed the latest version of his likeness appearing on a U.S. passport, part of a commemorative release to mark the 250th anniversary of American independence. In a Truth Social post, Trump described the new document as “The U.S.A.’s New Passport, which says, ‘Welcome, but be good!’”

A Passport Redesign Centered on Trump

The new passport, dubbed the “Patriot Passport” by the White House in a social media post, departs from previous State Department designs. Unlike earlier versions announced in April, which showed Trump with a serious gaze, the latest iteration features a monochrome portrait of Trump leaning forward against the backdrop of the Declaration of Independence, with his signature printed beneath. An engraving of the nation’s founders drafting the Declaration, set against a waving American flag, completes the spread. The phrase “United States of America 250” anchors the design.

According to the State Department, 40,000 of these commemorative passports will be made available to U.S. citizens at the Washington Passport Agency starting July 6, while supplies last.

Efforts to Place Trump’s Name on Federal Properties

The passport redesign is the latest in a series of moves by Trump or his allies to place his name, likeness, or signature on federal properties and programs. Previous efforts have included establishing Trump savings accounts for children and adding his name to the Kennedy Center. However, a federal judge recently ordered Trump’s name removed from the Kennedy Center, ruling that his allies lacked the legal authority to rename it.

Conclusion

Trump’s unveiling of the “Patriot Passport” continues a pattern of using federal programs and properties to promote his personal brand and image. The commemorative passport, featuring his portrait and signature, is the latest example of this approach as the nation prepares to celebrate its semiquincentennial. The move has drawn attention to Trump’s ongoing efforts to leave a personal imprint on government institutions, even as some of those initiatives have faced legal challenges.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/27/us/politics/trump-passport-design-america-250.html