Month: May 2025

In a letter to (former)Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray during his tenure, Committee Chairman Comer requested information, documents, and communications related to the CCP-connected entities and officials Governor Walz has engaged and partnered with, as well as any warnings or advice the FBI may have given to Governor Walz about U.S. political figures being targeted by or recruited for CCP influence operations.

“The CCP has sought to destroy the United States through coordinated influence and infiltration campaigns that target every aspect of American life, including our own elected officials. Americans should be deeply concerned that Governor Walz, Kamala Harris’s vice-presidential running mate, has a longstanding and cozy relationship with China. Mr. Walz has visited China dozens of times, served as a fellow at a Chinese institution that maintains a devotion to the CCP, and spoke alongside the President of a Chinese organization the State Department exposed as a CCP effort to influence and co-opt local leaders. FBI briefers recently informed the Committee that the Bureau’s Foreign Influence Task Force investigates CCP activity that is similar to China’s engagement with Governor Walz. The American people deserve to fully understand how deep Governor Walz’s relationship with China goes,” said Chairman James Comer.

In October,  a House Oversight report   warned that ‘The Chinese Communist Party (CCP or the Party) is engaging in warfare tactics against the United States with increasing efficacy. …[It] poisons tens of thousands of Americans every year with fentanyl …For now, the CCP conflict is not fought with weapons aimed at physical destruction…the U.S. government and its constituent agencies, departments, and commissions under the Biden-Harris Administration have not engaged the CCP malefactor with urgency or candor… the Biden-Harris Administration stayed largely silent, forcing agencies to determine whether and/or how to confront the CCP. Unfortunately, most agencies’ solutions and policies either ignored, placated, or only weakly addressed the PRC’s political warfare. By any reasonable analysis, the United States faces a new cold war, but under the [Biden Administration] only its opponent—the CCP—is committed to winning….Unlike the first Cold War, the adversary is already within, having entrenched itself within U.S. borders, institutions, businesses, universities, and cultural centers by capturing elites in influential circles warfare, a component thereof—is a prelude to larger, more direct conflicts, which the CCP anticipates. Through political warfare, the CCP seeks to establish footholds, dependencies, and both willing and unwitting allies that further its larger effort to weaken the United States. Myopic business decisions capitalizing on cheap labor sourced from the PRC, rosy narratives promulgated by government officials in exchange for PRC special treatment, and social tensions the CCP exploits are all CCP tools that make any U.S. effort to excise dependence on the PRC difficult and politically delicate. President Trump [in first first term] and administration officials spoke in a unified voice on the dangers posed by CCP infiltration and influence operations to show the American people the threat the CCP poses to every aspect of American life… the Oversight Committee’s investigation has revealed that too many of these efforts—especially transparent communication about the CCP threat—were not built upon by the Biden-Harris Administration. While CCP infiltration and influence operations target every sector and community in America, much of the federal government under the Biden-Harris Administration …failed to understand, acknowledge, and strategically combat CCP political warfare. discretion, and fulfillment of duties by federal agencies themselves. This has left a

 [during the Biden Administration] The size, complexity, and compartmentalization of the federal government has amounted to excuses and blame shifting that finds no parallel in the CCP, which is, because of its totalitarian nature, unsparingly unified and efficient in carrying out its plans to weaken the United States.

Illustration: Pixabay

Numerous important studies reveal the devastatingly effective attempt by the Chinese Communist Party to deeply influence the United States from within.

The recent links between the CCP and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu have reopened interest.

The volume, intensity and consistency of the ties between the Biden family, significant members of the California Democratic Party, Governor Tim Walz, as well as the recent revelations about Boston Mayor Wu highlight the threat.

While the Trump Administration has initiated renewed examination, the depth and intensity of Beijing’s infiltration makes the effort exceptionally difficult.

Over the past year, a number of Congressional members have called for action.

In a hearing last June entitled  “Defending America from the Chinese Communist Party’s Political Warfare, Part II.” It was noted that the “Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has successfully waged an influence and infiltration campaign that jeopardizes critical U.S. industries, including America’s military readiness, technology sector, financial markets, agriculture industry, intellectual property, and education systems. The Committee’s government-wide investigation into CCP political warfare has revealed federal agencies have failed to combat China’s dangerous tactics, and too much of the Washington bureaucracy appears unwilling to address the ongoing threat. Members stressed that the lives and security of all Americans are affected, and the Committee has a responsibility to ensure the federal government is taking every action necessary to protect Americans from the CCP’s political and economic warfare while equipping Americans for a secure and prosperous future.” 

Key Takeaways: from the hearing included:

Erik Bethel, Former U.S. Executive Director at the World Bank: “I have witnessed firsthand the nuanced and strategic efforts that China has employed to enhance its presence. They extend beyond mere representation to shaping global development, rules, regulations, and standards. China’s involvement in the International Telecommunication Union, for instance, impacts global telecommunications standards, with significant ramifications for technology and innovation worldwide.”

James E. Fanell, CAPT USN (Ret.): “The U.S. is now in a new Cold War. Over three decades, the U.S. had ample time to prevent the PRC’s rise and to retard its growth, even to support the overthrow of the CCP, but it did not. Those strategic choices must be explained—why did the U.S. assist, not prevent, the rise of its peer challenger? Was it entirely the result of a masterful, protracted Political Warfare campaign by the masters of deception, the CCP?”
 

Mary Kissel, Former Senior Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of State: “Xi Jinping has accelerated China’s influence operations via expansion and empowerment of the United Front Work Department and other party-state apparatus. Often, these operations seem like innocuous and even friendly exchanges. Xi Jinping’s regime regularly conducts influence operations within our borders, because we, as a democratic society, allow Party officials freedom of movement and speech that no ordinary Chinese citizen enjoys at home. Educating Americans on grey zone Chinese influence operations is also deeply important for our business community. I serve as a director of two publicly traded companies. Few American executives and directors are aware that they, like our diplomats, are prime targets of Chinese influence operations, which aim to identify prominent Americans who may now, or in the future, be convinced to aid Beijing in some form or fashion.”

Federal agencies have succumbed to CCP influence methods and the House Oversight Committee has demanded answers from agencies that do not – or will not – address the CCP’s political warfare head-on.

Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.): “Americans outside of Washington have no difficulty identifying the CCP for what it is: an authoritarian, communist regime enslaving its own people, and seeking to destroy America, which the CCP calls its ‘chief enemy.’ The American people know that the CCP represents the greatest foreign threat to the American way of life. Despite the fact that CCP political warfare targets and threatens all Americans—why do many federal agencies fail to speak honestly to the American people about the CCP? Too many federal officials do not realize that they have fallen for CCP influence tactics—in ways that cause some officials to reflexively dismiss the truth about this communist regime. Worse, some federal officials go so far as to actually excuse the CCP’s actions.”

The article concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

As tensions mount across the globe, America’s adversaries have made significant technological and development strides that clearly pose significant threats.

 A key report by Military Watch revealed China has made unprecedented advances in an artillery weapon so powerful that it has been compared to nuclear explosions.

It’s a unique technology uses hydrogen, unleashing massive chemical chain reactions. According to Military Watch, “the warhead successfully triggered a series of devastating chemical chain reactions to delivery significantly greater explosive force than conventional TNT.  The two kilogram bomb generated a fireball exceeding 1,000 degrees Celsius for more than two seconds, which was 15 times longer than an equivalent TNT blast. This has the potential to serve as a major force multiplier for a wide range of Chinese armaments, from ballistic missiles and artillery to air-to-air missiles.”

The site also reports that in another artillery move, Russia has introduced a new type of ammunition for its TOS-2 “Tosochka” heavy flamethrower system.  “This marks a significant improvement in the system’s combat performance, offering increased operational depth and tactical safety for artillery crews without requiring modifications to the launcher itself.”

Land developments are matched by worrisome new weaponry at sea. China’s navy, which vastly exceeds in size the U.S. Navy, is now matching it in quality as well. In addition to massive aircraft carriers, vessels specially designed to threaten American bases in the pacific have been launched,  The South China Morning Post reports that Beijing has floated a massive amphibious assault ship. The ship is both a direct threat to Taiwan as well as U.S. bases throughout the Indo-Pacific region.

In the Middle East, Army Recognition reports that Iran has developed a new large catamaran warship. This vessel, the site notes, is “reportedly larger and more heavily armed than the existing Shahid Soleimani-class corvettes, marking a notable development in the maritime capabilities of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC-N). … the ship’s size and shape suggest extended operational range and increased payload capacity compared to previously built IRGC vessels.”

In contrast, America faces hurdles in its weapons development programs. Asia Times, https://asiatimes.com/2025/04/hollow-halo-us-admits-defeat-in-hypersonic-missile-program/#  notes that” the US Navy has killed its next-generation hypersonic missile, slamming the brakes on a once-promising development program amid soaring costs, shaky performance and China’s growing arsenal. Naval News reported that the US Navy has terminated its Hypersonic Air-Launched Offensive (HALO) missile initiative. “

The construction of new submarines has faced a multitude of hurdles as well.

A long-developing threat, according to U.S. Army Gen. Xavier T. Brunson is the fact that North Korea launched has launched 47 ballistic missiles while focusing on advancing its cruise missile and hypersonic glide vehicle research and development programs. 

“In the coming year, we expect [North Korea] to further develop hypersonic and multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicle capabilities to complete [their government’s] goals.”

He also said North Korea is continuing to build its nuclear weapons program and that the country boasts a 1.3-million-man military force that is being equipped, modernized and augmented by Russia.  The general also noted that North Korea also poses an increasingly sophisticated cyberthreat and recently stole approximately $1.5 billion in cryptocurrency.  

Brunson said that it would be unwise to reduce the U.S. military presence on the Korean Peninsula in the face of North Korea continuing to develop its conventional and nuclear weapons programs.  

Reducing the force would be problematic, Brunson stated, noting that what U.S. Forces Korea provides “is the potential to impose cost in the East Sea to Russia, the potential to impose cost in the West Sea to China, and to continue to deter against North Korea as it currently stands.” 

From a renewed symbolic affirmation to a pragmatic shift in strategic vision, China and Russia both advanced their agendas at the May 8, 2025, summit in Moscow. They appear outwardly more unified in their mission to construct a parallel system in trade, security, and information governance. US officials are watching as the summit laid out a broad strategic vision ending in 20 significant, in-depth,  cooperation agreements and three joint statements dealing with defense, technology, law, and multilateral governance. Analysts in Washington point out that particular sectors under US scrutiny include artificial intelligence, energy, cross-border payments and legal standards for international order. 

Despite domestic and other pressing international issues facing Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, they issued joint statements portraying their partnership as a “normative response to US hegemony,” says Matthew Johnson of the Jamestown Foundation. He points out that the leaders invoked memories of World War II to defend sovereign development rights and oppose Western-led institutions and coercive measures. Although they referred to the alignment as defensive, Johnson says it reflects a deeper ideological and structural commitment that will be tested in the near future as both further their operational bloc-building.

China is expected to push a renminbi-based financial integration and regional security issues in the 11 BRICS (originally composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and the China-led, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). What remains unknown is how far and deep the convergence reaches beyond the typical rhetoric. China and Russia have competing interests in areas including Asia and the Arctic, that may suggest geopolitical caution is the easiest course to follow.

At the conclusion of the summit Moscow and Beijing issued a parallel declaration, “Joint Statement on Global Strategic Stability,” accusing Washington of “nuclear sharing” alliances, and space weapons efforts of eroding deterrence and increasing the risk of nuclear confrontation. China says the West, and the US in particular, used “subversion” (颠覆) to distort the post-WWII world order. Both communist leaders portray themselves as architects seeking a multipolar world order resistant to external sanctions and “power projection.” They also reaffirmed their wartime partnership and support for each other’s claims of sovereignty over Taiwan and Ukraine, according to Xinhua (New China News Agency). They are positioning themselves as defenders of the principle of “equal and indivisible security” (安全平等且不可分割), says Johnson. At the Moscow summit they called for new multilateral arms control mechanisms, support for a United Nations-centered international legal order, and condemned efforts to politicize export controls, AI, and biotechnology.

China used the summit as an opportunity to reframe global opinions on China’s behavior by emphasizing the “equal, universal, and good faith” (平等普遍善意) application of international law. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the document a simple reframing of PRC-Russia joint commitments as a defense of international order, although in reality they are challenging prevailing global governance mechanisms. Despite the leaders’ multipronged efforts, Western analysts argue that this does not eliminate asymmetries or caution between the two communist leaders. “Beijing remains wary of overcommitting to Moscow’s more explicitly revisionist agenda in Europe, while Moscow must navigate its growing dependency on the PRC without ceding too much autonomy or control over its strategic frontiers,” according to Johnson. He argues that this summit represents a real attempt to move beyond symbolism to update a roadmap for operational convergence across multiple strategic domains. It appears that Xi is willing to work toward this goal in several critical areas, calling for a “foundation of stability,”  “momentum of progress, and the “elimination of external influence” in high-impact sectors such as AI, aviation and aerospace, energy, and agriculture – all areas subject to Western sanctions pressure. 

The agreements coming out of the summit clearly indicate China is referencing areas the two countries can work on, including dual-use development, biosecurity, digital economy, critical infrastructure protection, and financial system independence. Some analysts suggest this week that a upcoming joint buildout is intended to act as an explicit hedge against future decoupling or conflict. If China continues its cooperation with Russia, it could create a parallel system capable of buffering it from Western pressure while further uniting the Global South with Beijing. “The two sides emphasized improving PRC-Russia cross-border infrastructure, customs capacity, and transit corridors, while also committing to “mutually beneficial cooperation on the Arctic route.” The absence of institutional detail or new Arctic agreements, however, suggests limits to Russia’s willingness to share governance over this critical frontier” says Johnson.

The summit represents three key operational shifts in 2025: an increase in military cooperation, institutional layering and bloc construction, and economic integration. Although the long-term outcome of the summit is concerning to Western leaders, China remains relatively consistent and did not violate any so-called escalation thresholds by supporting Putin’s war in Ukraine, addressing new areas of formal military cooperation, or advancing new defense commitments. As the two communist giants move closer together, analysts expect additional constraints to develop in the bilateral relationship, including regional rivalry in the Arctic and Central Asia. One area Washington analysts are paying close attention to is vaguely addressed in summit documents. It is the inclusion of “global strategic stability” (全球战略稳定). Washington believes that additional discussions concerning cooperation in satellite navigation and space are likely occurring behind closed doors in military-technical channels. The China-Russia bilateral relationship remains one of convenience and one that the world needs to watch as it could represent a renewed effort by China to move global leadership away from Washington and into its corner.

The U.S, Space Command has released a “Framework for Planners” addressing conflict above the atmosphere. We present the executive summary of the document.

United States Space Force Space Warfighting: A Framework for Planners

Access to and the ability to operate freely in space are vital to U.S. national interests. This framework presents the United States Space Force (USSF) current body of knowledge pertaining to space warfighting. It provides the Guardian’s perspective on the best way to approach warfare in the space domain throughout the competition continuum.

This framework is informed by Chief of Space Operations Notes, USSF doctrine, joint doctrine, and USSF Commercial Space Strategy (2024).

Space superiority is a joint force priority. This is especially important whenever the enemy is capable of threatening friendly forces in the space domain or inhibiting a Joint Force Commander’s (JFC’s) ability to conduct operations. Whether directly in the space domain, or through advances in space superiority capabilities, peer and near-peer competitors are capable of challenging or denying control of the space domain. These capabilities, supported by cyberspace and space advancements, present growing challenges to the Joint Force’s ability to exercise space superiority. Not only are space operations global, they are also multi-domain. A successful attack against the terrestrial, link, or orbital segment can neutralize a space capability; therefore, space domain access, maneuver, and utilization require deliberate and synchronized offensive and defensive operations across all segments.

Space superiority may shift from defense to offense and be conducted within the vicinity of enemy, friendly, and commercial spacecraft, or along shared lines of communication in both space and cyberspace. Space superiority may involve seeking out and destroying an enemy’s spacecraft, systems, and networks through measures designed to minimize the Space Warfighting.

It is a rule in strategy, one derived empirically from the evidence of two and a half millennia, that anything of great strategic importance to one belligerent, for that reason has to be worth attacking by others. And the greater the importance, the greater has to be the incentive to damage, disable, capture, or destroy it. In the bluntest of statements: space warfare is a certainty in the future because the use of space in war has become vital. —Colin S. Gray

Because warfare serves political aims, warfare is fundamentally a human activity. The same holds true for space warfare. Credible-combat space forces support U.S. deterrence efforts, which seek to affect the decision calculus of would-be aggressors. The USSF organizes, trains, equips forces, and is ready to conduct the operations that provide offensive and defensive actions that deny, degrade, or disrupt an adversary’s decision-making cycle and ability to observe, orient, decide, and act.

While space warfare—like all warfare—is a human activity, the character of warfare in the space domain features highly automated systems that filter or reduce human decision making. These systems are necessary for space vehicles to operate in the domain featuring high speeds, long distances, and congested orbital regimes.

Detailed analysis must help us characterize how and when humans interact with these systems.

Space Superiority

Space superiority allows military forces in all domains to operate at a time and place of their choosing without prohibitive interference from space or counterspace threats, while also denying the same to an adversary.

Space superiority extends beyond protecting friendly space capabilities from attack, it also encompasses protection of friendly forces in all domains from space-enabled attack.

Adversary exploitation of the space domain enables adversaries to communicate and to find, engage, and conduct post-attack assessments against joint forces and partners; space superiority enables the denial of these key adversary advantages. The ability to establish space superiority at the time and place of our choosing enables joint lethality in all domains.

Space superiority options for the United States against a potential Adversary:  The condition where both have full capability is undesirable and results in prohibitive interference to the Joint Force during conflict. The condition where neither have full capability is undesirable because the Joint Force relies heavily on space to achieve joint effects. The desired condition is to maximize U.S. advantage while minimizing that of a potential adversary. Importantly, actions taken to achieve space superiority should not completely jeopardize the long-term safety, security, stability, or sustainability of the space domain.

In some situations, an actor may not be able to control the domain by operating how it wishes but may have the power to deny use of the domain to others. This is known as a denial.  Denial could also be achieved with reversible, temporary effects. Denial, like other aspects of space superiority, may be bounded in temporal and spatial dimensions.

Seizing space superiority at the time and place of our choosing can offer advantages to military forces. By concentrating effects to control celestial lines of communication, United States space forces can achieve space superiority and enable joint lethality. In many ways, the modern use of various orbital regimes in the space domain provides similar advantages to military forces that control key terrain and positions in other domains.

Space superiority has both spatial and temporal dimensions. Because of the expansiveness of the space domain, which includes the orbital, link, and terrestrial segments, various Earth orbits, and cislunar space, the attainment of space superiority at all places and all times will likely prove elusive. This means space superiority can be either general or local and either persistent or temporary.

General superiority of space is achieved when the enemy is no longer able to act in a meaningful or dangerous way against friendly celestial lines of communication, and it also means that the enemy is unable to adequately defend or control its own assets or deliver space effects in support of its own operations. Local superiority is where control is gained or exercised and is less than the total region where one’s interests in space lie. Persistent superiority means that despite the adversary’s attempts, the element of time is no longer a significant strategic factor in the execution of warfare in, from, and to space. Temporary superiority means that either general or local control is gained for a specific period to achieve either military or non-military objectives.

When superiority is both general and persistent, it does not mean the enemy cannot act, but that the adversary is severely weakened to such a point where its efforts are unlikely to affect the war’s outcome in a significant and lasting way, and this condition aligns most with space supremacy. When superiority is both local and persistent, it signifies that significant space capabilities and celestial lines of communication are protected within a specified region for the foreseeable future, yet the military outcome is still not assured. Achieving space superiority involves both offensive and defensive operations. During the pursuit for space superiority, it is critical to heed the timeless advice of maritime strategist Julian Corbett: To seek invulnerability is to fall into the strategical vice of trying to be superior everywhere, to forfeit the attainment of the essential for fear of risking the unessential, to base our plans on an assumption that war may be waged without loss, that it is, in short, something that it never has been and never can be.

Photo: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket booster carrying a payload of two WorldView Legion satellites launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., May 2, 2024. This launch marked a collaboration between the U.S. Space Forces – Space and Maxar Technologies, a commercial space company. This mission was supported by S4S’s CIC program, which fosters collaboration between the DoD and commercial space companies to deliver critical space capabilities. (U.S. Space Force photo by SrA. Joshua Leroi)

In two prior articles, we discussed the decision of James Boasberg, the Chief Judge of the DC District Court to halt President Trump from the deportation of members of the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua (TdA).     Readers of those articles will recall that  President  Trump issued a Proclamation declaring members of TdA to be Alien Enemies, and agents of the Venezuelan government, who had encouraged members of the gang to infiltrate the United States in an effort to destabilize our country with their criminal activity. 

In doing so, the President invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), which states that “[w]henever there Is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory Incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.” 

Our readers will also recall that Judge Boasberg’s decision was upheld by the DC District Court.  Two of the appellate judges, Karen LeCraft Henderson and Patricia Millett, discussed the due process rights of the “noncitizen Venezuelan” plaintiffs, and implied that the Trump Administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was illegitimate.  But the dissenting opinion by Judge Justin Walker charted a different course.

“[I]ndividuals identified as alien enemies,” Judge Walker wrote, “may challenge that status in a habeas petition…The problem for the Plaintiffs is that habeas claims must be brought in the district where the Plaintiffs are confined. For the named Plaintiffs at least, that is the Southern District of Texas. Because the Plaintiffs sued in the District of Columbia, the Government is likely to succeed in its challenge to the district court’s orders.”

The United States Supreme Court reviewed the decision of the DC Court of Appeals and issued their own opinion on April 7, 2025.  Can you guess how they ruled?

“Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely ‘preclude[s] judicial review’…must be brought in habeas… Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas.” (Citations omitted.) 

In other words, Judge Walker was absolutely right.  If Venezuelans subject to deportation under the Alien Enemies Act wish to challenge their removal, they must do so by a Habeas Corpus petition in a Court with jurisdiction where these persons are physically being held.

But what about Judge Henderson and Millet’s concerns about the due process rights of these “noncitizen Venezuelans?”

According to the Supreme Court, “[A]n individual subject to detention and removal under [the AEA] is entitled to ‘judicial review’ as to ‘questions of interpretation and constitutionality’ of the Act as well as whether he or she ‘is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.'”  However, “[t]he only question is which court will resolve that challenge…we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement.”

In other words, Judges Henderson and Millett created a straw man to knock down.  Both asserted that the Venezuelan plaintiffs were being denied the right to challenge their deportations.  But the real question was who decides their challenge – the DC Court, picked by the plaintiffs’ lawyers, or the Texas District Court, where the plaintiffs are actually located?

Legally, historically, and properly, the District Court of Texas has jurisdiction.  Which means the attempt to “forum shop” by the lawyers for the plaintiffs has failed.

Of course, the dissent by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson follow the usual arguments.  “This case arises out of the President’s unprecedented peacetime invocation of a wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act,” Justice Sotomayor writes. “There is, of course, no ongoing war between the United States and Venezuela. Nor is Tren de Aragua itself a ‘foreign nation’…The President’s Proclamation nonetheless asserts that Tren de Aragua is ‘undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction . . . of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.'”

Justices Henderson and Millet argued in a similar vein, asserting a very narrow view of the circumstances under which the Alien Enemies Act can be raised.  But as we noted, a war declared by Congress is not the only time when the AEA can be invoked.  The statute also applies when “any invasion or predatory Incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States.”

Justice Sotomayor also makes the same effort to evoke sympathy for the “noncitizen Venezuelan” plaintiffs as did the DC Court of Appeals; “Deportation” she states, “presented a risk of extraordinary harm to these Plaintiffs. The record reflects that inmates in Salvadoran prisons are ‘highly likely to face immediate and intentional life-threatening harm at the hands of state actors.’” But of course, this ignores the extraordinary harm members of Tren de Aragua pose to the American public at large.

One issue that has not received much attention – we won’t see another mass deportation of gangbangers, or any other criminal aliens to a Salvadoran prison anytime soon.  As Justice Sotomayor notes, “The Court’s order today…requires the Government to afford plaintiffs ‘notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act . . . within reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs’…That means, of course, that the Government cannot usher any detainees, including plaintiffs, onto planes in a shroud of secrecy, as it did on March 15, 2025. Nor can the Government ‘immediately resume’ removing individuals without notice…[t]o the extent the Government removes even one individual without affording him notice and a meaningful opportunity to file and pursue habeas relief, it does so in direct contravention of an edict by the United States Supreme Court.”

Thus, those who support keeping Alien Enemies within our borders have won the right to delay removal of these illegal invaders until they’ve had hearings (and presumably, appeals of those hearings when an adverse decision results).

But there is yet another issue that has arisen as an unintended consequence of this litigation, one with a potential outcome that could have very far reaching effects.

When Judge Boasberg issued his order stopping the deportations of the “undocumented Venezuelans,” he initially ordered that “Defendants shall not remove any of the individual Plaintiffs from the United States for 14 days absent further Order of the Court.” The Court then expanded its order to prevent the removal of “All noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the March 15, 2025 Presidential Proclamation.”  This order applied beyond the Court’s immediate jurisdiction, to all “noncitizens in US custody,” no matter where in the United States they were located.

The ability to issue an order that affected persons outside of the Court’s immediate jurisdiction caused more questions than any other aspect of this dispute.  Can a federal district court do that?  Does one judge have that much power?

The short answer is, yes.  As we discussed as far back as 2019, “for many years, it has been held repeatedly by the US Supreme Court that the power to issue injunctive relief extends to whoever is affected by the injunction, whereever they may be.  For instance, in Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., a 1952 decision, the Supreme Court held that  “the District Court in exercising its equity powers may command persons properly before it to cease or perform acts outside its territorial jurisdiction” (emphasis added)…Thus, there is no geographical limit to a Court’s exercise of its power to issue an injunction.”

But Judge Boasberg’s assertion of his authority may just have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.  As described in The Hill, “[t]he House…passed a bill restricting district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in a move that would vastly diminish the ability of courts to block President Trump’s policies. Dubbed the No Rogue Rulings Act, the legislation from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) would limit judges to providing relief only to parties directly involved in the suit.” 

According to Representative Issa, “[s]ince President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges who they have sought out to take their cases and weaponize nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives.”  However, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said “Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable. Without them, millions of people could be harmed by these illegal or unconstitutional government policies.” 

While Representative Jayapal makes a valid point, this is another example of the abuse of the law for political ends.  As reported by The Hill, “Judges issued six nationwide injunctions during President George W. Bush’s administration, according to an analysis published in the Harvard Law Review. The number doubled to 12 during the Obama administration before skyrocketing to 64 during Trump’s first term. During the Biden administration, the number of nationwide injunctions fell back to 14, a figure that has already been surpassed in a matter of weeks in the second Trump administration.”

These statistics lend credence to the position taken by Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif); “Judges are asserting this authority by themselves, and it’s an outrageous abuse of public trust and judicial power and opened the Pandora’s box that threatens the constitutional order.”

There is no guarantee that the Senate will pass this bill, once it is forwarded to the upper house by the lower.  But the issue is now front and center in the Congress, and in the minds of the public.

If nothing else, the attention may make some judges think twice before issuing blanket rulings blocking President Trump’s initiatives – particularly ones that are popular with the public.

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

The ongoing and monumental decline of the Democratic Party since the November election is a historical event of significant proportions. The potential demise of the oldest political party in the United States, founded in 1828 and approaching its 200th year in 2028, is a matter of grave concern can it survive. This commentary aims not to rescue the Democratic Party from its potential extinction, but to dissect the self-inflicted actions that led to its current predicament that has roots deeply imbedded in the party.

First Chapter “The Courts”

The Biden Administration built on the long history of using the courts to achieve what they could not achieve in Congress. With the appointment of liberal judges to the lower courts over successive presidents, they changed the structure of the courts to get them to give them the power they wanted by legislating from the bench. The American people reacted to the expansive use of lawfare to go after Donald Trump, a misuse of the courts that had a profound impact on the political landscape and the outcome of the election.

The assault on Trump marked the first instance in our nation’s history where the vast resources of the government were deployed to influence the outcome of a Presidential election. The 5 cases against Trump, were viewed by Americans as an abuse of power, it began to unravel, leading to a surge of public discontent against Biden and the Democratic party. In April 2024, a PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll revealed that 45% of Americans deemed these investigations unfair and a deliberate obstruction of his 2024 presidential campaign. 

One of the ironies was that the more they went after Trump with 4 other charges, his favorable polling data increased, and Biden’s went down. The American people had a greater sense of fairness than the Democratic Party leadership. This lack of trust in the American justice system was shown by the 132 claims filed by the Democratic Party against the Trump Administration in his first 90 days in office. The Democrats couldn’t stop him from being elected President by using the courts. Now, they are using the district courts to try and stop him from doing what the electorate wants him to do.

Second Chapter  NGO (Non-Government Organization) 

President Trump ran on the platform that he wanted to eliminate waste, fraud, and corruption in government departments. Elon Musk was brought in to head a team of professionals to examine how the government was being run and how our tax dollars were being spent. Even the Democrats knew that there was fraud, corruption, and waste in the government because they were responsible for most of what was going on. That is not to say that some Republicans didn’t have a hand in some of it. 

We know that there is a Federal bureaucracy of unelected people who decide how your money is spent, and their actions were not subject to approval. What does it cost for an employee in the government vs the private sector? The average income is almost $94,000 per year plus $36,000 for the cost of benefits. However, the average non-government income is only about $64,000 plus $16,000 for benefits. These people approve the payments to NGOs who spend your tax dollars possibly against your principles and values.  Elon Musk calls for arrest of ‘fake NGO’ leaders — claiming they’re part of a  ‘giant money laundering scheme.’

Biden transferred $20 Billion to an offshore bank and then began distributing the money to NGOs in the United States. Under the Biden administration, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded $2 billion to a “green energy” nonprofit that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists such as former Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams. The DOJ/FBI are investigating, and the money has been frozen. It is insane that the Biden Administration would give $2 Billion to an organization that previously only received $100. The massive grant was awarded to Power Forward Communities in April 2024 from environmental spending in former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act 2022.

So far, DOGE has identified $140 billion in fraud and corruption and expects to find at least $1 trillion before they are done. According to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) paid $380,000 a month for website changes before canceling the contract and having an internal staffer take over. You can go to the DOGE website, https://doge.gov/payments and see all the things they have discovered so far. 

Third Chapter Corruption

Who gets the fees in NGO’s? The Democrats have spent trillions of dollars on pet projects in America and all over the world. There is no doubt that some are good, but most are not. I wonder, and now so does Elon, how people are retiring from Congress with millions of dollars in net worth on an annual salary of $174,000 as a member of Congress.

Speaking at a town hall in Wisconsin, Elon Musk suggested that his team at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will investigate how certain members of Congress have achieved generational wealth. One attendee at the town hall  asked Musk if DOGE had uncovered evidence of funds wired from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)” The government] sends the money overseas to one NGO [non-governmental organization], then they’ll go through a bunch of them, and then I’m highly confident that a bunch of that money then comes back to the United States, and lands in the pockets of the people you just mentioned,” Musk replied.

The tactics the Democrats have used in the past are fading fast. The more we shine light on these practices, the quicker we can get rid of them, and our elected officials will hopefully serve us instead of themselves and their agenda. We will be eliminating the deep state, cleaning out the courts, and putting our house in an open and transparent accounting of how our government spends your money. Indeed, the golden age of America will be with us for a long time.

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, Danperkins.guru, and songsandstoriesforsoldiers.us.