A Note to Our Readers from POLITICO’s CEO and Editor-in-Chief POLITICO has been the subject of debate on X this week. Some of it has been misinformed, and some of it has been flat-out false. Let’s set the record straight. POLITICO is a privately owned company. We have never received any government funding — no subsidies, no grants, no handouts. Not one dime, ever, in 18 years. Millions of people around the world read our journalism on POLITICO.com , POLITICO.EU and in newsletters like this one. It is supported by advertising and sponsorships. POLITICO Pro is different. It is a professional subscription service used by companies, organizations, and, yes, some government agencies. They subscribe because it makes them better at their jobs — helping them track policy, legislation and regulations in real-time with news, intelligence and a suite of data products. At its core, POLITICO Pro is about transparency and accountability: Shining a light on the work of the agencies, regulators and policymakers throughout our vast federal government. Businesses and entities within the government find it useful as they navigate the chaotic regulatory and legislative landscape. It’s that simple. Most POLITICO Pro subscribers are in the private sector. They come from across the ideological spectrum and subscribe for one reason: value. And 90 percent renew every year because they rely on our reporting, data and insights. Government agencies that subscribe do so through standard public procurement processes — just like any other tool they buy to work smarter and be more efficient. This is not funding. It is a transaction — just as the government buys research, equipment, software and industry reports. Some online voices are deliberately spreading falsehoods. Let’s be clear: POLITICO has no financial dependence on the government and no hidden agenda. We cover politics and policy — that’s our job. We are so proud of our journalists and so proud of the connection we have with you, our readers. We stand by our work, our values and our commitment to transparency, accountability and efficiency — the same principles that drive great journalism and great business. Now, back to work. Goli Sheikholeslami and John Harris COLLISION COURSE — Since President Donald Trump took office, federal courts have been busy hitting the brakes on the most ambitious parts of his shock-and-awe agenda. Courts have temporarily blocked the administration’s ability to implement a federal funding freeze , its attempts to cull the federal workforce , the president’s order ending birthright citizenship and even a plan to move three incarcerated transgender women to men’s facilities. What it tells us is that Trump’s second term seems likely to be defined by a different kind of conflict than his first. This time around, he understands the gears and levers of government better. He’s surrounded by loyalists in every agency. Congress has bent the knee and shows zero interest in serving as a check on the executive branch. Now, it’s the judiciary, which is fielding a deluge of legal challenges against the White House agenda, that’s barreling towards a confrontation with a president who already holds it in low regard. The contours of the fight between the two branches of government — and exactly how a newly emboldened Trump plans to take on obstinate judges — are just now coming into focus. After a district judge issued a temporary restraining order on the Trump administration’s ability to implement a blanket federal spending freeze on Monday, many EPA climate and infrastructure grants remain frozen as of today. The Justice Department has acknowledged receipt of the judge’s order. But the Trump administration has not yet complied with portions of the order. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), described the standoff this way : “It’s hard to tell what is incompetence and what is confusion and what is basically contemptuous trickery.” The incident might be a one-off, an innocent oversight in the fog of assembling a new administration. But it might also be a preview of what’s to come. There are few enforcement mechanisms that the judiciary can rely on to make other branches of the federal government comply with their orders. If the Trump administration decides to willfully ignore orders from federal judges, it would, at minimum, present a constitutional crisis with no obvious solutions. Federal courts often impeded Trump’s agenda during his first term. His attempt to end DACA and his original travel ban executive order both faced immediate challenges in the courts and were shut down or rolled back. But back then, in 2017, even though his party controlled Congress, he was also forced to fight an obstinate Congress that still contained some Republicans willing to draw a line. They’re now gone, replaced by more compliant members . For at least the next two years, Trump will enjoy congressional majorities there largely to do his bidding. All that’s left to rein in his agenda is the judiciary — and Trump has learned in recent years how to spin political gold out of defying and attacking judges. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court will help the administration on some issues, but judges in lower courts are a decidedly mixed bag ideologically. Federal judges are not as easy to bully as members of Congress. But suddenly there’s a more complicated question: what if the Trump administration just decides to ignore them? Congress isn’t going to ride to the rescue. Neither is the newly remade Department of Justice, where one of Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi’s first actions was to create a working group to review the criminal and civil suits brought against Trump. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@politico.com . Or contact tonight’s author at cmchugh@politico.com or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @calder_mchugh .
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.