Americas’ defense establishment is not meeting the rising challenges of the nation’s adversaries, notes former Marine and Federal prosecutor John Deaton. Listen to his sobering analysis on this week’s program. Then, Antisemitism has had an astounding resurgence, much of it on college campuses and among Progressive activists. Author Robert Spencer provides key insights. If you missed the program on your local station, catch it here
Photo: Chinese advanced fighter aircraft J-10
The United States, after decades of facing militarily inferior foes, now must deal with the reality of Putin’s nuclear saber rattling, (Russia has the world’s largest nuclear force,) China’s bid for military supremacy in the Indo-Pacific, and the rising atomic threats from North Korea and Iran.
During the period when America did not face near-peer adversaries, its nuclear arsenal was allowed to age to an unacceptable level.
According to the U.S. Strategic Command’s Gen. Anthony J. Cotton, the current security environment is unprecedented, with multiple new armed strategic adversaries who have not followed the U.S. lead as responsible nuclear powers, often working with regional actors to the detriment of a stable international system.
For instance, he said, China’s military buildup is ramping up, particularly its dual-use military-civilian shipyards and nuclear delivery platforms, adding that China has made its intentions clear that it intends to seize Taiwan by 2027. General Cotton notes that following the Cold War, there was no perceived near-peer competitor, so the U.S. took advantage of the peace dividend, scaling back the military industrial base and deferring nuclear modernization. “great power competition is back. That is why I speak …with a sense of urgency.”
Some things that need to be delivered, he said, include the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, the Columbia-class submarine and the B-21 Raider bomber. “Further delay of these programs will have cascading effects,” Cotton said. He added that the B-52 needs to be modernized with new engines and upgraded radar and electronic suites,
Cotton emphasized that maintaining a sustained and credible nuclear deterrent isn’t that expensive, considering the alternatives. Current funding for the Defense Department’s nuclear portfolio is only around 4% of the budget.
He emphasized that conventional capabilities complement nuclear deterrence. For instance, hypersonics provide a responsive, long-range, non-nuclear strike capability against non-critical threats without resorting to nuclear options. They allow mission planners to tailor strategies and plans that will enable the president to have an extended range of options across all phases of conflict and to control escalation. Other important options for the president include cyber and space capabilities as well as unmanned, inexpensive systems in the air and water.
The general’s warning is reflected in a Heritage Foundation study which reported that “The United States must rebuild and replace its Cold War–era nuclear deterrent, given the growing threats posed by the autocrats in Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, and Tehran. China is the fastest-growing nuclear power on the planet, building more than 100 new nuclear weapons per year. Russia has more than 10 times as many operationally deployed non-strategic nuclear weapons than the United States. North Korea regularly threatens the United States and its allies in South Korea and Japan with nuclear annihilation. And Tehran may be weeks away from the bomb. The United States must—immediately and continuing over the next four years—build and field a deterrent that is credible and can therefore deter, and, if necessary, defeat, adversary aggression and nuclear coercion.”
In a 2023 Newsmax op-ed, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) expressed his concern that “When the United States built much of its nuclear stockpile, the Cold War was raging and the Soviet Union was our only major adversary with a sophisticated nuclear stockpile. Our nuclear power deterred Soviet aggression and ensured that the Cold War never escalated.
“But today, we no longer face just one threat. Russia still maintains the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, but China’s nuclear stockpile is growing rapidly. North Korea continues to threaten our allies with its collection of nuclear weapons. And, thanks to the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, Iran is marching ever closer to developing nuclear weapons of its own.
“The United States must now counter nuclear superpowers in both China and Russia while also deterring the itchy trigger fingers of unstable dictators like Kim Jong Un and the Ayatollah in Iran. We should be innovating and preparing our nuclear arsenal for this new global dynamic, but instead, our nuclear stockpile remains stuck in the Cold War.
“Simply put: America’s nuclear stockpile is old and shrinking. And while modernizing our nuclear arsenal should be a top priority, our effort to restart nuclear weapon production has been riddled with delays and poor planning. And we don’t have time to waste.
“The United States has not built a single nuclear warhead since the close of the Cold War. Instead, we’ve focused on “life extension programs” to keep our old weapons operational by refurbishing them. Those that aren’t refurbished are destroyed. From 1994 to 2020, the U.S. dismantled 11,683 total nuclear warheads. This total does not include the 2,000 other warheads that have been “retired” while awaiting their own demolition, too.
“Most of our nuclear warheads are decades old. The facilities where we built and store these are even older. As recently as 2019, the computer system controlling our nuclear weapons ran on floppy disks. Today, we are so far behind in our nuclear revitalization that we cannot even produce plutonium pits – an essential component of every nuclear weapon…the United States has not regularly manufactured plutonium pits since 1989. In fact, the United States has not produced a single warhead-ready plutonium pit since 2012.
“But our adversaries never stopped. China, Russia, North Korea, and Pakistan all continue to produce plutonium pits to ready their arsenals. Yet the United States fell asleep at the wheel and let our plutonium pit production die off entirely…Modernizing our nuclear stockpile is essential for maintaining our national security and affirming our position as a global leader. Our weapons don’t only protect Americans; they protect our allies, too. As part of our Extended Deterrence Strategy, we’ve agreed to help defend our allies who don’t have nuclear weapons of their own. But our allies see our antiquated stockpile and wonder if we can follow through on that promise.
“Look no further than China. According to the Pentagon, China already has more ICBMs than the United States. In 2021, China had 400 nuclear warheads. By 2035, China will have 1,500, far outpacing the Pentagon’s initial projections. China is also rapidly innovating. The Chinese military has been testing nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles that can fly five times the speed of sound – roughly 3,800 miles per hour. A few weapons China is testing could leave its intended target only minutes to respond.”
General Cotton warns that the window of opportunity for production and modernization is closing, he said. “If we don’t get it right, we won’t have an opportunity to come back and do it later.”
Photo: Gneral Cotton (Stratcom photo)
From requests to place one’s garbage in the freezer to defunding the police, the list of progressive policy absurdities continues to grow.
Certainly, those on the left have every right to profess their opinions. However, they must expect reasonable criticism when those views, as they frequently do, fail to meet expectations of logic and viability.
In areas as global as defense spending and as local as waste policy, the programs and practices Progressives advocate have invariably caused significant harm while producing little or no benefits.
Start with defunding the police. As Rep. Clay Higgens reported in 2022, “’Defund the police’” was more than just a catchphrase for the radical left. Democratic cities across the country reduced funding for their police forces over the past two years. Minneapolis, which saw some of the year’s most violent riots, cut its police budget by $8 million. Los Angeles slashed police funding by $150 million, and New York City shrank the NYPD’s budget by $1 billion. As a result, 14 major Democrat-run cities saw their highest homicide levels on record in 2021. The upward trend has not stopped. Fox News recently analyzed data from seven major cities and found that this year, violent crimes have increased up to 40% over 2021. The increase has been particularly pronounced in New York City and Seattle, two cities that were on the leading edge of the “defund the police” movement. Though, it’s not just homicide rates that are up. Carjackings have become commonplace in many cities, and major increases in organized retail theft have left business owners struggling, frustrated, and feeling abandoned by local leaders. Democrats are blaming everyone except their own policies for the drastic increase in violent crimes.”
Progressive spending policies, which did little to address infrastructure or any other issue, has put the U.S. Treasury in a deep hole. America is at the highest level of indebtedness in history.
The Biden White House was the most progressive in U.S. history. In foreign policy, his Administration’s disastrous weakness was a factor in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. His abject surrender of $7 billion dollars of military equipment to the Taliban produced incalculable harm. His refusal to condemn terrorism, in the Middle East or on college campuses, resulted in the greatest threats to Jews across the globe since the fall of the Third Reich. Similarly, his failure to address assaults on Christians in Africa and elsewhere produced an unprecedented diminution of religious liberty.
Progressive policies have jeopardized national security. Leftist spending policies during the Biden Administration resulted in net decreases in after counting for inflation, at a rime when China has openly threatened U.S. interests, Russia has mobilized for war, North Korea has enhanced it nuclear forces, and Iran is on the verge of getting nuclear weaponry.
In issues more local and mundane, the irrationality of progressive legislation has made life miserable for the citizenry. Consider a few examples.
America’s large cities are beset by traffic. Rather than address that dilemma, so-called infrastructure spending during the ultra-progressive Biden Administration was diverted to environmental policies that did little to help the environment but soaked up dollars that could have been utilized for traffic remediation. Inadequate road space has been made even more sparse by absurd policies that take up road space for bike lanes, which are viable for a microscopically small percent of commuters.
Perhaps one of the most salient examples of Progressive insanity comes from New York City, where extreme environmentalists have mandated composting for food scrapes. When residents have asked where to store the waste material, which cannot be placed with regular garbage and is only collected once a week, they were instructed to place the garbage in their freezers!
The list could go on indefinitely, including items such as giving illegal aliens vast amounts of funds that should have been directed to shoring up increasing shortfalls in safety net programs meant for American citizens. However, the militancy of Progressive politicians and their supporters defiantly ignores any utilization of common sense and practicality.
Illustration: Pixabay
Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles, Japanese Minister of Defense Nakatani Gen, Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro, Jr. and United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth met together on May 31, 2025 in Singapore. This marked the fourth Defense Leaders Meeting of these four countries in the last three years, underscoring their sustained and significant collaboration to advance a shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific.
The defense leaders expressed continued serious concern about China’s destabilizing actions in the East China Sea (ECS) and the South China Sea (SCS) and any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion. They also reiterated their serious concern about dangerous conduct by China in the SCS against the Philippines and other countries, and stressed the importance of the peaceful resolution of disputes. They underscored the importance of upholding international law, freedom of navigation and overflight, particularly as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The defense leaders called for peace and stability in the region. They underscored the importance of the central role of ASEAN and the ASEAN-led regional architecture in ensuring security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.
The defense leaders announced four key developments in their partnership:
The defense leaders concurred on the importance of regularly convening meetings at ministerial and officials’ levels to reinforce cooperation and coordination among the four countries. Looking ahead, they committed to continue working together and with other like-minded partners to support peace, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific
Illustration: Pixabay
On this week’s program, Steve Goreham warns of the looming renewable energy failure, which has already struck havoc in parts of Europe. Judge John Wilson (ret.) provides key insights on the autopen scandal, and also reviews the phenomena of judges breaking the law. If you missed the program on your local station, catch it here.
Recently, I stumbled upon a research report by the Napolitan Institute titled The Resistance: The First 100 Days, Navigating the Deep Partisan Divide in the Administrative State. The report uncovers a startling truth about the enigmatic Deep State and its alarming depth. The revelation is shocking: The December survey revealed that a mere 16% of Managers who voted for Harris would adhere to a legal order from the president if they disagreed. The staff voted over 75% for Democrats.
This report shows what many Republicans have believed for many years: that Democrats control the government and are a serious impediment to implementing Republican policies. The idea that an unelected staffer can decide that they have judged a program initiated by a Republican can be ignored.
The Institute conducted surveys of 500 Federal Government Managers, 1,000 members of the Elite One Percent, and 1,000 Registered Voters nationwide to gauge attitudes toward the Trump Administration’s early actions.
The results suggest the Trump Administration will face ongoing resistance from Democrats in the federal bureaucracy. The Institute found little change since the initial December survey; only 16% of Managers who voted for Harris said they would follow a legal order from the president even if they disagreed with it.
Interestingly, those one-sided respondents to a Democratic president’s agenda would be similar in percentages but reversed compared to a Republican in the White House.
The elite 1% is a group of highly educated individuals, earning over $150,000 annually, and residing in densely populated areas. Their influence is significant, representing approximately 1% of the U.S. population. It’s startling to learn that many in this class are troubled by what they perceive as “too much individual freedom in America.”
The Institute’s research confirms the conservatives’ assessment that the Administrative State is highly arrogant at best and deeply committed to pursuing its own agenda, regardless of who controls Congress or the White House. The bureaucracy has little interest in neutrality or listening to voters. Not surprisingly, therefore, supplemental research shows that 66% of voters believe the federal government bureaucracy is a special interest group looking out primarily for its own interests, the Deep State. The surveys found a disturbing alignment between the Elite One Percent, Republican Managers, and Democratic Managers on regulatory attitudes favoring more regulations and government control, a view that starkly contrasts with that of most voters who believe in less regulation and government control.
Politically Active: These people talk politics every day or nearly every day. The rest of the voters, approximately 8%, talk politics daily. The Elite 1%, the percentage total talking about politics ranges between 25% to 30%. Among federal government managers, approximately 13% talk about politics daily.
Politically Engaged: These are people who talk about politics daily and those who talk about politics on most days. Approximately 31% of voters are politically engaged. Among the Elite 1%, that total is generally around 65%. Among Federal Government Managers, approximately 39% are politically involved.
Politically Disengaged: People who discuss politics once a week or less. Among voters, roughly 68% fall into this category, including 28% who rarely talk politics. Among the Elite 1%, approximately 35% talk politics once a week or less. Among Federal Government Managers, approximately 59% are politically disengaged.
Main Street Americans: This group represents 70-75% of the U.S. population. They are the antithesis of the Elite 1%. They have none of the three attributes of the Elite 1%. Few have postgraduate degrees, they don’t live in densely populated urban areas, and their household income is less than $150,000 annually. The gap between Main Street views and Elite 1% views is gigantic on many foundational issues. Main Street Americans have little trust in government, and most believe there is not enough individual freedom in America today.
Politically Engaged: The report notes people who talk about politics daily and those who talk about politics on most days. Approximately 31% of voters are politically engaged. Among the Elite 1%, that total is generally around 65%. Among Federal Government Managers, approximately 39% are politically involved.
Politically Disengaged: People who discuss politics once a week or less. Among voters, roughly 68% fall into this category, including 28% who rarely talk politics. Among the Elite 1%, approximately 35% talk politics once a week or less. Among Federal Government Managers, approximately 59% are politically disengaged.
A staggering 76% of Federal Government Managers who voted for Kamala Harris have expressed their intent to resist the Trump Administration, underscoring the deep political divide within the government. Not surprisingly, 92% of the managers who voted for Trump indicated they would support the administration.
It’s a staggering statistic: only 16% of Managers who voted for Harris would follow a legal order from the president if they disagreed. A whopping 75% would ignore the order and do what they thought was best, a clear indication of the Deep State’s influence.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democratic Government Managers and 53% of Republican Managers believe the government should be allowed to censor social media posts.
Fifty percent (50%) of Democratic Government Managers say parents have too much control over their children’s education.
The Elite One Percent and Federal Government Managers continue to rate the economy and immigration as far less critical than voters. They also rate climate change, education, and the state of American politics as much bigger concerns.
This report shows that the Administrative State’s underlying premise is false. Rather than thoughtful, nonpartisan experts carefully deliberating over policy details in a neutral manner, the Administrative State’s leadership is actively engaged in hyper-partisan activity.
Following the DOGE layoffs, most Republican Managers (55%) favor trimming the federal payroll by 1% yearly for ten years.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Democratic Managers disagree.
Scary Thoughts on the Deep State
Remember, none of the Deep State bureaucrats were elected by you. Seventy-five percent, 75%, would ignore the order given by the president and do what they thought was best.
Seventy-six percent (76%) of Federal government managers who voted for Kamala Harris say they will resist the Trump Administration.
Not surprisingly, 92% of the managers who voted for Trump indicated they would support the administration. Only 16% of Managers who voted for Harris would follow a legal order from the president if they disagreed.
We have seen several examples recently where Deep State bureaucrats have released information to the media and have done so because they feel they have a right to control the agenda and call out elected and appointed leaders. They believe what was said earlier and think they have the right to do what they think is best for the country.
The Deep State is not what is best for America.
Dan Perkins is the author of 9 books, a nationally syndicated talk show host, an expert on energy, and politics. He is the founder and creative director Dan Perkins Media. Dan is the host of some shows on the network, The Truth Starts Now is one. His newest outlets for commentary Yournews.com and amfm247radio.com has two 1 hours shows. Join the 2 million listeners and viewers to Dan’s thoughts, you can find more info about Dan and his works at danperkins.guru.
Illustration: Pixabay
What happens when judges are clearly committing illegal acts? Here we turn to several examples from the state courts.
As described in The Hill, “Former Doña Ana County Magistrate Joel Cano and his wife Nancy Cano were taken into custody at a home in Las Cruces, New Mexico…Cano rented out his casita to Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, an alleged Tren de Aragua member, at the behest of his wife last year…[t]hey met Ortega-Lopez when his wife hired him to do housework, according to a criminal complaint. The District Attorney’s Office said Cano’s daughter had multiple firearms and let Ortega-Lopez hold, shoot and pose with them in pictures that were posted on social media.”
As bad as this situation may have been for the judge and his family, Cano managed to make his position worse for himself; “Federal officials have accused the judge of destroying a cellphone said to belong to suspected gang member Cristhian Adrian Ortega-Lopez,” according to NBC News. “In a criminal complaint, the officials said that the judge destroyed the phone with a hammer and that the device was being sought because it may have contained photographs showing Ortega-Lopez possessing weapons, some of which allegedly belonged to Cano, his wife and their daughter.” Further, “[t]he judge’s wife, Nancy Cano, was charged…with conspiracy to tamper with evidence. The criminal complaint alleges that she told Ortega-Lopez to delete his Facebook account where he had posted photos with weapons allegedly owned by the judge, his wife, or their daughter.”
Notice that Cano is a “former judge.” Curious why he’s no longer on the bench?
“Two separate disciplinary inquiries into Cano were unsealed…after the state Supreme Court canceled [previously scheduled] oral arguments,” according to the Albuquerque Journal. “Cano resigned from the bench in March with the stipulation that he would never again seek judicial office or exercise judicial authority in New Mexico. The order halted further disciplinary proceedings…A complaint alleged that Cano had committed willful misconduct in office by allowing [the illegals] to live on his property, and had permitted them access to firearms.”
The Albuquerque Journal also adds this bit of information; “Cano, 67, was first elected to the bench as a Democrat in 2010.” Further, “[t]he other [unsealed] inquiry…addressed findings of judicial misconduct pertaining to matters in Cano’s courtroom…Cano had inappropriately sought information about an internal investigation into a State Police officer; submitted a response to an appeal in which he disparaged a local defense attorney’s reputation; failed to recuse himself when that appeal was remanded to his court; and made a false statement during proceedings in another case.”
It would appear that Cano may have thought of himself as being above the law for some time, based upon these other disciplinary charges. In the matter that led to his arrest, it is possible that Cano did not know specifically that Ortega-Lopez was a member of Tren de Aragua. But he and his wife certainly knew Ortega-Lopez was in the country illegally, and should not have had access to firearms. That would explain their efforts to destroy evidence.
Very little effort has been made to publicly defend former Judge Cano for his actions. But another judge who acted in a far more questionable manner has found many powerful supporters.
As described by CNN, “[a] Milwaukee County Circuit judge was arrested by the FBI…and charged in federal court for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest. Judge Hannah Dugan is facing two charges for obstruction and concealing the individual from arrest…investigators said that plainclothes federal agents went to Dugan’s courtroom on April 18 with the intention of arresting [Eduardo] Flores-Ruiz. A Mexican immigrant, Flores-Ruiz had been removed from the United States in 2013, but immigration officials learned he was back in the country illegally because of his arrest in a local domestic abuse case. After being informed of the agents’ presence by her courtroom deputy, the judge ‘became visibly angry, commented that the situation was ‘absurd,’ left the bench, and entered chambers,’ court documents say…Several witnesses – including Dugan’s courtroom deputy and both the prosecutor and the Victim Witness Specialist on Flores-Ruiz’s case – allegedly recounted seeing Dugan then direct Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to leave through a ‘jury door,’ which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse, court documents say. One of the witnesses told investigators that Dugan stopped the two as they tried to exit through the normal door to the courtroom, saying something to the effect of ‘wait, come with me.’ Flores-Ruiz and his attorney quickly exited the courthouse before the agents were able to catch up to them, investigators say. Agents found Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse and identified themselves. He took off running but was eventually captured.”
FBI Director Kash Patel defended the arrest of Judge Dugan on Obstruction of Justice charges, stating “We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject – an illegal alien – to evade arrest.” Attorney General Pam Bondi chimed in with some very familiar words; “Nobody is above the law, not even a judge.” But the usual characters had the usual response.
“’The judiciary acts as a check to unchecked executive power. And functioning democracies do not lock up judges,’ Democratic [Wisconsin] state Rep. Ryan Clancy” told a group protesting the arrest. “Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, in a statement on the arrest, accused the Trump administration of repeatedly using ‘dangerous rhetoric to attack and attempt to undermine our judiciary at every level.’”
Speaking to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Milwaukee Attorney Ann Jacobs said “The message is crystal clear: ‘If you cross the Trump administration, we will arrest you.’ I mean, I think that’s literally what they are trying to do. So, I think the goal is to chill judges from ruling against the Trump administration…certainly, that’s the intention of this, with the hopes that they can cudgel the judiciary into simply becoming meekly obedient to the executive branch.”
The interview adds an interesting fact in the judge’s defense. Apparently, according to Jacobs, the federal agents “go to Judge Dugan’s courtroom, and they say, ‘We’re here to arrest this guy.’ And she says, ‘We’ve got a protocol. You have to go talk to the chief judge,’ whose courtroom is some distance away. And they say, ‘Fine.’ And she goes back in.” So far, so good – there is nothing inappropriate in a judge asking law enforcement to follow proper procedure. But also according to Jacobs, after Judge Dugan was informed that federal agents were there to arrest Flores-Ruiz, “she allows the public defender and the gentleman at issue to go out a side door.”
Hustling a defendant out a side door to avoid arrest may strike a memory chord with our New York City readers – anyone remember Queens Criminal Court Judge Laura Blackburne?
“Reader’s Digest gave one of three annual Broken Gavel Awards to Blackburne after an incident in June (2004), where the judge told a court officer to release 23-year-old robbery suspect Derek Sterling. He was taken to an elevator used only by judges, to avoid an arrest in a different case by a detective who was waiting outside the courtroom for him. Blackburne did not think she did anything wrong. Her response to the defendant at the time was, ‘I resent the fact that a detective came to this court under the ruse of wanting to ask you questions when, in fact, he had it in his head that he wanted to arrest you. If there is a basis for him arresting you, he will have to present that in the form of a warrant.’”
Some background on Judge Blackburne might place her actions in perspective: “Blackburne, 66, is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law and is the wife of Elmer Blackburne, a former Democratic district leader in Southeast Queens. She is also a former Democratic district leader and served briefly as a lawyer for the NAACP before running unopposed in 1995 for a 10-year term as a judge. Prior to her judicial career, Blackburne earned citywide notoriety in 1992 after resigning as the chairwoman of the New York City Housing Authority in the face of widespread criticism of her lavish spending on redecorating her office. She spent $38,000, including $3,070 on a pink leather couch and $5,500 for matching pink venetian blinds.”
While the Judge did not face any criminal charges, as a result of her conduct, she was removed from the bench by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct in 2006. As the New York State Court of Appeals stated, “[i]n impeding the legitimate operation of law enforcement by helping a wanted robbery suspect to avoid arrest, petitioner placed herself above the law she was sworn to administer, thereby bringing the judiciary into disrepute and undermining public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of her court…petitioner’s dangerous actions exceeded all measure of acceptable judicial conduct. By interposing herself between the defendant and the detective, petitioner abandoned her role as neutral arbiter, and instead became an adversary of the police. This is completely incompatible with the proper role of an impartial judge.”
We can discuss whether the arrest of Judge Dugan is a bit heavy-handed, or an example of a government that has reached the final straw with courts that take the law into their own hands. In either case, it is important to note something that Judge Dugan’s defenders have clearly forgotten.
Under Canon 2 of the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, “[a] judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently'” while Canon 1 states that “[a] judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” Under these rules, the actions of Judge Dugan are just as unethical as were the actions of Judge Blackburne.
It is one thing for Judge Dugan to tell federal agents they need a particular warrant to arrest the defendant, and to speak with the Chief Judge. But it is quite another thing to help that defendant escape.
The same goes for Judge Cano. Perhaps he did not know he was harboring a member of Tren de Aragua. But he certainly knew that he was giving shelter to an illegal alien, and allowed that person access to weapons. Making matters worse, he and his wife then tampered with the evidence of that alien’s possession of those weapons.
Neither Judge Cano nor Judge Dugan acted in an impartial manner. Neither upheld and promoted the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. But unlike the federal judges described above, who may be motivated by their own bias, yet are still acting within the boundaries of the law, both of these state judges acted in violation of the law.
At the very least, both Cano and Dugan deserve removal from their posts for unethical conduct, and some level of criminal prosecution for their illegal actions. But the situation involving the federal judiciary is more subtle, and calls for a different solution.
Judge John Wilson (ret,) served on the bench in NYC
Illustrations: Pixabay
In recent days, the conduct of the judiciary, both federal and state, has been called into question. On the national level, a series of injunctions have been issued by District Court judges which block the implementation of various initiatives taken by the Trump Administration. We have previously discussed the restraining order issued by the Chief Judge of the DC District Court, James Boasberg, which prevented the Department of Homeland Security from deporting five alleged members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua. But there have been many others.
For instance, in April of this year, “[a] federal judge in California issued an injunction…blocking President Donald Trump’s efforts to halt federal funds from going to several cities and counties considered sanctuary jurisdictions.” In fact, this same judge issued a similar order during President Trump’s first term, but the Biden Administration dropped the appeal of that order. Then, “[a] federal judge…blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to rescind collective bargaining rights from employees at nearly a dozen government agencies and departments. The order…requires federal agencies to engage with their employees’ unions and to resume collecting dues payments, among other normal employee relations business. The judge’s order covers employees at the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Treasury and Energy, the Office of Personnel Management, and other major agencies.”
Also in that same month, two different federal judges “blocked the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from schools that participate in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Hours after a New Hampshire judge issued a similar order…a federal judge in Maryland…issued a broader ruling that prohibits the Department of Education from using federal funding to end DEI initiatives within public schools.”
In fact, the Congressional Record Service “has identified 17 cases in which federal courts issued nationwide injunctions between January 20, 2025, and March 27, 2025.” Of these, three block the Executive Order regarding Birthright Citizenship, and six restore federal funding to various programs and organizations.
Most of these orders are on appeal, and undoubtedly, many will be overturned in whole or in part. As we have discussed in a previous article, the Executive Order redefining citizenship cannot stand. Undoubtedly, many voters support changing the definition of citizenship provided in the US Constitution in an effort to exclude illegal immigrants from having “anchor babies.” But the process for changing any clause in the US Constitution is outlined in the document itself, at Article V – “[A]n amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention…[a] proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).”
As we stated in March, “if the President and Congress want to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegals, they must follow the procedure outlined in the Constitution, and propose an Amendment.”
Aside from whether or not these injunctions will be reversed on appeal is the question of judicial interference in the Trump Administration’s agenda. As the situation is described by Law Professor Jonathan Turley, “when Trump came to office, the taste for national injunctions became a full-fledged addiction…[t]he problem with some of these orders is not that they are without foundation, but that courts appear on a hair-trigger to enjoin the Trump administration on any subject whatsoever. There is a need to deescalate…as we expedite these appeals.”
President Trump himself believes these federal judges are breaking the law, or at the least, exceeding their authority, and should be impeached. As described by NPR, “[w]ithout naming [Judge] Boasberg…Trump said, ‘This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!’ He also called Boasberg a ‘Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama.'” But US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts responded with reason to the President’s understandably emotional statement; “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
As frustrating as the delays in moving forward with the Trump Agenda may be, and as obviously reactionary as many of these stays may be, Justice Roberts is right. The appellate process is the correct way to handle the rash of nationwide injunctions. But to quote Professor Turley again, “[t]he Supreme Court bears some of the blame for this. Although a majority of justices, including liberal Justice Elena Kagan, have complained about district courts’ issuance of national injunctions, the high court has done little to rein in district court judges. On May 15, the justices are poised to consider the issue in a case involving birthright citizenship. Many hope that the justices will bring what they have consistently failed to supply to lower courts: clarity and finality.”
Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow
Former U.S. Attorney and author of Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate, and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism John O’Connor details how journalists have betrayed their duty to report the truth. “America’s Physiatrist” Dr. Carole Lierberman provides an expert analysis on what motivates former FBI Director James Comey’s bizarre statements. If you missed the program on your local station, catch it here.
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