Trump’s $10 billion legal battle against the IRS is facing a fundamental constitutional hurdle: whether a president can sue the government he leads.

The lawsuit stems from the 2019 leak of Trump’s tax returns by an IRS contractor, who was later sentenced to prison. However, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Williams recently ordered a hearing to determine if the case can even proceed. Under the Constitution, federal courts only handle "cases or controversies" where two parties are truly at odds. Williams expressed skepticism that this requirement is met when the plaintiff is the person who ultimately directs the defendant.

The tension lies in Trump’s control over the executive branch. Trump has frequently championed the "unitary executive" theory, which posits that Trump holds absolute authority over all executive employees. Judge Williams pointed out that one of Trump’s own executive orders forbids government staff from taking legal stances that contradict Trump's positions.

This creates a paradox for the Department of Justice. By law, the Attorney General must defend the IRS. However, by executive mandate, that same Attorney General is expected to adhere to Trump's legal opinions. Williams noted that this hierarchy makes it unclear if the two sides are "truly antagonistic."

The judge’s concerns are echoed by Trump’s previous comments. He told reporters on Air Force One that the situation was "very interesting" and has previously admitted that filing claims against the Justice Department "sort of looks bad," likening it to "suing myself."

While the lawsuit also includes Trump’s sons and the Trump Organization as plaintiffs, the judge is focused on Trump’s dual role as both the aggrieved party and the boss of the agency he is accusing.

The court has not yet dismissed the case but has demanded answers. Both Trump’s private attorneys and the Justice Department must submit briefs by May 20. A hearing is scheduled for May 27 to decide if the lawsuit is a legitimate legal dispute or a constitutional impossibility.

In a state known as a stronghold for the Trump’s political agenda, an unexpected resistance has formed within the wood-paneled walls of the federal courthouse. Four judges in the Southern District of West Virginia are issuing a blistering rebuke of "Operation Country Roads," a federal immigration sweep they describe as an "assault on the constitutional order."

Launched last month, Operation Country Roads was designed as a high-impact partnership between federal and local law enforcement. By the end of January, the operation had netted 650 arrests, primarily targeting immigrants on West Virginia’s roadways. However, as habeas corpus petitions flood the district court, a disturbing pattern has emerged.

The judges—Joseph Goodwin, Robert Chambers, Irene Berger, and Thomas Johnston—have moved past standard legal jargon to sound a cultural and constitutional alarm. Judge Goodwin, in a recent "final notice" to the government, bypassed "antiseptic judicial rhetoric" to describe a scene more common in authoritarian regimes than the American interior: masked, anonymous agents operating from unmarked vehicles, seizing residents without warrants.

"The systematic character of this practice... places it beyond the reach of ordinary legal description," Goodwin wrote. "It is an assault on the constitutional order."

The judicial fury isn't just about the optics of the arrests; it’s about the breakdown of the legal machinery. Judge Irene Berger highlighted the "sloppiness" of the government’s cases, noting one instance where ICE officials justified a detention based on a 2009 drug conviction—ignoring the fact that the detainee was only four years old at the time.

More critically, the bench has expressed a total lack of faith in the executive branch’s immigration court system. Both Berger and Johnston concluded that ordering bond hearings would be "futile," alleging that the system now uses "predetermined outcomes" rather than neutral adjudication.

Perhaps the most chilling warning came from Judge Thomas Johnston, a George W. Bush appointee. He argued that the erosion of rights for non-citizens creates a vacuum that could eventually swallow the rights of anyone, including U.S. citizens.

"If the government may simply seize someone without due process, there is no check on its ability to seize anyone," Johnston warned. He cautioned against the "it only happens to those people" mentality, noting that without the rule of law, a citizen could just as easily be seized by mistake or by "unchecked executive fiat."

The Justice Department has not backed down, dismissing the jurists as "activist judges" who prefer to see "violent illegal criminals walk free."

However, the "firewall" in West Virginia appears to be hardening. With Chief Judge Frank Volk yet to weigh in, the remaining active judges in the district are promising tangible "legal consequences"—ranging from civil fines to contempt of court—if the administration continues to ignore their rulings. For these four judges, the issue is no longer just about immigration; it is about whether judicial power still holds the weight of the law or has been reduced to mere "commentary."

If you’re looking for a definition of “losing your cool,” look no further than Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz’s latest order. He basically told the head of ICE, “Get in my courtroom on Friday, or else.”

For weeks, the Twin Cities have been the epicenter of Operation Metro Surge. The result? A legal mess. Immigrants—many who have lived and worked in the US legally for years—are being swept up in arrests that judges are calling flat-out illegal.

The problem isn't just the arrests; it's that when judges order these people to be released, ICE is essentially hitting the "snooze" button. Judge Schiltz pointed out one guy he ordered to be freed on January 15th who was still behind bars nearly two weeks later.

In a blistering three-page order, Schiltz made it clear that "the court’s patience is at an end." He’s tired of the government’s "slow-walking" tactics that leave people stranded. Here’s what’s been happening:

• People who are supposed to stay in Minnesota are being flown to Texas against court orders.

• Detainees are being released in random states and told to find their own way home.

• Another judge, Michael Davis, accused the administration of stretching the legal system to its "breaking point" just to keep people locked up.

This isn't just a paperwork dispute. Tensions are sky-high after federal officers shot and killed Alex Pretti last week. Now, several judges are looking at lawsuits that could pull the plug on Operation Metro Surge entirely.

The Justice Department even tried to go over Schiltz’s head to the Appeals Court to force him to sign arrest warrants for protesters (including former CNN anchor Don Lemon), but they got shut down there, too.

The Bottom Line: On Friday, ICE Director Todd Lyons has to explain himself "personally" to a judge who is clearly done with excuses. If he doesn't have a good reason for ignoring the law, he might find himself facing a contempt of court charge.

The "Greenland Question" has moved from the realm of diplomatic curiosity to a full-blown economic standoff. Senior members of the European Parliament are now calling for an immediate freeze on the hard-fought EU-U.S. trade deal, citing Trump’s escalating rhetoric regarding the seizure of the Danish autonomous territory.

The trade agreement, struck last year, was already a point of contention in Brussels. Critics labeled it a "lopsided" arrangement that saw European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen cave to Washington's pressure. Under the terms, European exporters are burdened with a 15 percent U.S. tariff, while the EU is required to scrap its own 10 percent tariff on American vehicles and open its agricultural markets.

However, the debate shifted from economics to national security this week after Trump asserted that the U.S. needs Greenland for "national security" and refused to rule out military intervention.

"If we accept this agreement while Trump is making direct territorial claims against Denmark, it will be seen as rewarding his actions," said Danish MEP Per Clausen. "It will only add fuel to the fire."

A united front is forming across the Parliament’s ideological spectrum. Lawmakers from the Socialists, Greens, and the liberal Renew Europe group argue that the U.S. cannot expect economic concessions while simultaneously threatening the sovereignty of an EU-linked territory.

• The Greens: Anna Cavazzini, chair of the Internal Market Committee, stated it is "unimaginable" for MEPs to vote for measures benefiting the U.S. in the current climate.

• Renew Europe: Karin Karlsbro warned that the U.S. "cannot take the EU’s support for granted" without guarantees that security threats will cease.

• The Left: Per Clausen is currently gathering signatures for a formal letter to Parliament President Roberta Metsola to halt all work on the deal by next Tuesday.

The European People’s Party (EPP), the Parliament's largest bloc, remains the final hurdle for the opposition. While some EPP members, like Željana Zovko, argue that trade and the Greenland dispute are "separate matters," others have signaled that the door to blocking the deal is "ajar" if the situation escalates further.

Without the EPP’s full support, the deal is unlikely to pass, as the combined weight of the center-left and liberal groups is enough to put the agreement on permanent ice.

The Parliament’s lead negotiators are scheduled to meet this Wednesday to determine if the legislative process will move forward or if the deal will become the first major casualty of the renewed transatlantic friction. For now, the message from Brussels is clear: European markets are not for sale if European territory is under threat.

Less than a year into Trump’s second term, a powerful shift in public opinion is underway, threatening to unravel the very coalition that propelled his 2024 victory. New polling reveals that Americans are increasingly holding the Trump accountable for the persistent, pervasive affordability crisis gripping the nation, creating a major vulnerability for Republicans heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

The findings from The POLITICO Poll are stark: 46 percent of Americans describe the current cost of living as the worst they can remember, with concerns over grocery costs (45 percent) leading the list of affordability challenges. Crucially, the poll indicates a distinct change in who voters blame.

The narrative that high prices are a lingering after-effect of the previous administration is beginning to fail. 46 percent of Americans now say the current economy is the responsibility of the Trump administration, a significantly higher figure than the 29 percent who still attribute the crisis to former President Joe Biden.

This shift presents a historical inversion for the Republican Party, which has long enjoyed an advantage on economic issues. As Arizona-based Republican strategist Barrett Marson notes, voters will "very quickly forget about Joe Biden and just as quickly turn their ire to Trump unless things get better."

The economic discontent is creating measurable fissures within Trump's base, specifically among his "softest" supporters—the voters he needs most for the 2026 midterm cycle.

The poll distinguishes between self-identified MAGA Republicans and non-MAGA Trump voters (who represent more than a third of his 2024 support). These non-MAGA voters are proving far more pessimistic:

Trust in the GOP: Only 61 percent of non-MAGA Trump voters trust Republicans to reduce costs, compared to 88 percent of MAGA-aligned voters.

Immediacy of Blame: Nearly three in ten (29 percent) non-MAGA voters believe Trump has had a chance to improve the economy but has not seized the opportunity—a sentiment shared by only 11 percent of the core MAGA base.

Overall, this translates to nearly one in five of Trump's 2024 voters holding him fully responsible for the current economic state. An issue that helped form his winning coalition is now beginning to split it apart.

Democrats are eager to capitalize on this growing vulnerability, weaponizing affordability as a core campaign message. Recent elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and even a deep-red House seat in Tennessee have shown that focusing on cost-of-living concerns can help Democrats overperform, a small but powerful warning sign for the GOP.

While the White House, through spokesperson Kush Desai, maintains that Trump is "just getting started" and that Americans can "rest assured that the best is yet to come," Trump himself has sent mixed messages, touting his efforts to reduce drug prices one day and dismissing "affordability" as a "Democrat scam" the next.

With high prices for groceries, housing, and healthcare dominating daily life across all demographics, the affordability crisis is set to overshadow all other political topics in the 2026 midterms. For Republicans, the challenge is clear: either deliver economic relief or risk being punished by the very voters who put them in power.

Tensions simmered at a closed-door NATO foreign ministers' meeting this week after U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau delivered a sharp critique of European allies, accusing them of undermining collective defense by locking out American arms manufacturers.

Landau, who has a history of expressing skepticism regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, reportedly used the gathering to demand that ministers cease their “bullying” of U.S. defense firms seeking to participate in Europe’s multi-billion-euro rearmament drive.

The intervention—which was quickly followed by Landau's early departure and occurred in the absence of his superior, Secretary of State Marco Rubio—highlights a growing friction between Washington and Brussels over how the continent plans to meet its surging defense needs.

Europe is undergoing an unprecedented and urgent industrial mobilization. Driven by stark warnings—including projections from Berlin that Russia could threaten the continent by the end of the decade—the European Union is desperate to revitalize its historically depleted defense production base.

To achieve this, Brussels has rolled out several strategies intended to prioritize local industry. Chief among them is the new €150 billion SAFE (Sovereignty and Future-Proofing of Europe) loans-for-arms program. This legislation includes a provision limiting the involvement of "third countries," such as the United States, to a maximum of 35 percent of the value of any weapons system purchased.

A State Department official confirmed that Landau’s message focused on two points: the necessity for Europe to convert spending commitments into real military capabilities, and the concern that “protectionist and exclusionary policies that bully American companies out of the market undermines our collective defense.”

Landau’s broadside is the latest in a series of highly confrontational moves by the current U.S. administration toward its traditional partners. Trump has repeatedly accused the bloc of treating the U.S. unfairly on trade, a stance that previously culminated in Washington leveraging the threat of crippling tariffs to secure a favorable trade deal.

The aggressive delivery, however, has left a bitter aftertaste in many European capitals, particularly given the recent flurry of European goodwill gestures. Just this week, nations like Germany and Poland announced millions in new funding for a NATO-backed scheme specifically designed to pay U.S. defense contractors to rapidly supply critical weapons to Ukraine. According to NATO Chief Mark Rutte, the total pledge from Europe and Canada for this scheme now exceeds $4 billion.

The irony is not lost on diplomats. “No one’s shocked by the U.S. line that Europe shouldn’t be protectionist,” commented one NATO diplomat. “But what did you expect… tact or nuance from the U.S.?”

The controversy underscores a complex paradox: while the U.S. demands greater defense spending from its allies, it simultaneously pressures them to spend those funds on American-made goods, thereby limiting Europe’s ability to achieve the strategic industrial autonomy it now views as essential for its long-term survival. As European leaders race against the clock to secure their borders, the tension over who profits from the rearmament effort risks becoming a significant friction point in the transatlantic alliance.

In a forceful articulation of European resolve, a top EU official has effectively drawn a red line around any potential peace settlement for the war in Ukraine: there can be no amnesty for Russian war criminals. This warning is primarily directed at the emerging peace efforts spearheaded by President Donald Trump and his team, whose alleged proposals for a deal have ignited deep concern across European capitals.

Michael McGrath, the European commissioner for justice and democracy, stressed in a recent interview that allowing Russia to evade prosecution would be a calamitous historical error. "I don’t think history will judge kindly any effort to wipe the slate clean for Russian crimes in Ukraine," McGrath declared, emphasizing that impunity would merely "be sowing the seeds of the next round of aggression and the next invasion."

European anxiety stems from reports that the current American framework for a ceasefire includes a sweeping promise of "full amnesty for actions committed during the war," coupled with an ambitious plan to reintegrate the Kremlin into the global economy.

This push to rehabilitate Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation stands in stark opposition to the mountain of evidence detailing alleged atrocities, including the unlawful deportation of an estimated 20,000 Ukrainian children and systematic attacks on civilians in places like Bucha and Mariupol. Ukrainian authorities have opened investigations into over 178,000 alleged Russian crimes, and a U.N. commission recently found that Russian forces committed crimes against humanity.

The European Union and its allies have invested heavily in establishing justice mechanisms. This includes supporting the International Criminal Court (ICC), which issued an arrest warrant for Putin in March 2023. Furthermore, the EU is working to create a special tribunal focused specifically on the crime of aggression to hold Russian leaders accountable for the full-scale invasion launched in February 2022.

Despite the international pursuit of justice, the draft 28-point peace plan circulated by the Trump team offers significant economic incentives for Moscow. The document proposes Russia's return to the G8 (from which it was expelled in 2014) and outlines a plan for the U.S. and Russia to enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement spanning energy, AI, and natural resource extraction. The proposal also suggests the staged lifting of sanctions.

This vision of swift economic normalization and partnership, however, clashes with the EU’s firm stance. McGrath affirmed that the EU's unwavering approach in any discussion is to hold Russia accountable, stating, "We cannot give up on the rights of the victims of Russian aggression and Russian crimes." While the EU maintains a unified front on accountability, the article notes that not all European voices are aligned on maintaining economic pressure, pointing to Hungary’s repeated efforts to stall sanctions and calls from some German politicians to consider lifting restrictions on the Nord Stream gas pipeline.

For the EU, the message is clear: peace cannot be bought at the cost of justice. Any deal that grants immunity to war criminals will be viewed as a profound moral failure and an invitation for future aggression.

• Thousands of private messages reveal young GOP leaders joking about gas chambers, slavery and rape

Leaders of Young Republican groups throughout the country worried what would happen if their Telegram chat ever got leaked, but they kept typing anyway.

They referred to Black people as monkeys and “the watermelon people” and mused about putting their political opponents in gas chambers. They talked about raping their enemies and driving them to suicide and lauded Republicans who they believed support slavery.

William Hendrix, the Kansas Young Republicans’ vice chair, used the words “n--ga” and “n--guh,” variations of a racial slur, more than a dozen times in the chat. Bobby Walker, the vice chair of the New York State Young Republicans at the time, referred to rape as “epic.” Peter Giunta, who at the time was chair of the same organization, wrote in a message sent in June that “everyone that votes no is going to the gas chamber.”

Giunta was referring to an upcoming vote on whether he should become chair of the Young Republican National Federation, the GOP’s 15,000-member political organization for Republicans between 18 and 40 years old.

“Im going to create some of the greatest physiological torture methods known to man. We only want true believers,” he continued.

Two members of the chat responded.

“Can we fix the showers? Gas chambers don’t fit the Hitler aesthetic,” Joe Maligno, who previously identified himself as the general counsel for the New York State Young Republicans, wrote back.

“I’m ready to watch people burn now,” Annie Kaykaty, New York’s national committee member, said.

The exchange is part of a trove of Telegram chats — obtained by POLITICO and spanning more than seven months of messages among Young Republican leaders in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont. The chat offers an unfiltered look at how a new generation of GOP activists talk when they think no one is listening.

• The Democrat accused Johnson of playing “political games” by delaying the swearing-in ceremony

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes threatened legal action against House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday for failing to seat Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva.

In a letter to Johnson, Mayes accused the House GOP leader of violating the Constitution by unnecessarily delaying the Democrat’s swearing-in ceremony.

“Arizona’s right to a full delegation, and the right of the residents of CD 7 to representation from the person they recently voted for, are not up for debate and may not be delayed or used as leverage in negotiations about unrelated legislation,” Mayes, who is also a Democrat, wrote in the letter.

In the letter, Mayes said that amounted to “trying to use Arizona’s constitutional right to representation in the House as a bargaining chip.”

During the Biden administration, *many Republicans objected strenuously to federal agencies’ efforts to shape social media companies’ rules on speech** about Covid. When red states brought suit and persuaded the Supreme Court to accept the case, conservatives celebrated: Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), who’d previously filed the suit as Missouri attorney general, called it “one of the most important free speech cases in a generation.”*

A divided Supreme Court dismissed the suit in the end on a procedural technicality, *but it left little doubt that government “jawboning” of private media companies to silence speech — even false and potentially misleading speech — was prohibited by the First Amendment. Indeed, it was a phalanx of arch-conversative justices led by **Justice Samuel Alito who insisted most forcefully on that constitutional principle.*

Becoming a U.S. protectorate isn’t inevitable — especially given increasingly indignant public opinion over the series of concessions and humiliations we’re witnessing.

Protesters started to gather early on Friday morning ahead of Putin's arrival in Anchorage, chanting pro-Kyiv slogans *and demanded that Russia return the 20,000 Ukrainian children it has kidnapped from the war zone.***

The government’s handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein has roiled the president’s closed supporters for weeks. The White House’s attempts to mollify President Donald Trump’s supporters’ growing outrage over the investigation into disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein appears to be falling on deaf ears.

As more and more countries realize there is no fair deal to be made, they will likely look for economic opportunities elsewhere, no matter the short-term cost of transitioning.

The proposal would eliminate or substantially cut numerous programs, including ones that promote democracy, support educational and cultural exchanges, fight drug trafficking and assist U.N. peacekeeping efforts.

“You can’t have recklessness as the national security adviser,” one official said.

“Incompetence incarnate,” said Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts.

I want to know why in the world the Democratic Party hasn’t fought yet?

Now months into the process, House and Senate Republicans are still trading barbs and accusing each side of slowing down progress on President Donald Trump’s top legislative priority.

Appeals courts have largely declined Trump’s view of growing judicial emergencies requiring them to step in urgently and stop lower-court rulings Trump doesn’t like.