Trump Admin Vows to Defy Judge’s Ruling on Military Crackdown

Donald Trump’s Department of Justice is vowing to keep troops stationed in Los Angeles, despite a Tuesday ruling declaring the administration’s use of the military in the city for domestic law enforcement purposes illegal.

Earlier, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s use of federal troops to perform police functions in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act. The judge further barred the administration from using the military in California “to execute the laws, including but not limited to engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants” in ways that violate that law.

California Governor Gavin Newsom applauded the ruling on X, writing that the courts ruled that Trump’s “militarization of our streets and use of the military against US citizens is ILLEGAL.”

But Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, told the governor that the troops are going nowhere. “The military will remain in Los Angeles,” he wrote in response to Newsom. “This is a false narrative and a misleading injunction.”

Essayli went on to argue that the military is not involved with “direct law enforcement operations” in Los Angeles. Instead, he repeated the administration’s justification for its iron-fisted military crackdown on the city, first sparked by anti–Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests in June: that troops are protecting federal agents from “thugs” supported by Democratic officials. (Several hundred National Guard troops still remain in Los Angeles.)

Essayli’s claim runs counter to Tuesday’s ruling, which found that the Trump administration indeed “systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson is offering Republicans a cowardly out to avoid voting on a bipartisan discharge petition to release the Epstein files in full. 

Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna have been trying to push a House bill that would force the Justice Department to release the Epstein files, an effort that was reignited by the Trump administration’s shady mess of a rollout that shed further light on the president’s close friendship with the defamed serial sexual predator. 

But rather than deliver transparency to the public, Johnson scheduled a vote this week that would allow Republicans to order the Oversight Committee to “continue its ongoing investigation.” The legislation does nothing to force the Justice Department to outright release the files in full, as Khanna and Massie are fighting for. 

This all comes as the House Oversight Committee plans to meet with 10 of Epstein’s victims on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to further investigate “the possible mismanagement of the federal government’s investigation of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell, the circumstances and subsequent investigations of Mr. Epstein’s death, the operation of sex-trafficking rings and ways for the federal government to effectively combat them, and potential violations of ethics rules related to elected officials.” Massie and Khanna also plan to hold a press conference with the victims on Wednesday.   

“Speaker Johnson just scheduled this meaningless vote to provide political cover for those members who don’t support our bipartisan legislation to force the release of the Epstein files,” Massie wrote shortly after news of Johnson’s ghost vote broke. Massie said he plans to file his discharge petition to force a vote on releasing the files on Tuesday at 2 p.m. Johnson’s vote allows Republicans to pretend they’re doing something on the matter by simply telling the Oversight Committee to keep up the good work, serving as yet another exhibit of Republicans choosing to protect rich pedophiles.  

At least half a million people across the country marched against the billionaire takeover of the government on Labor Day—but you wouldn’t know it by the amount of coverage media devoted to it.

The U.S. Department of Labor has called President Donald Trump’s second administration the “new dawn” and “golden age” of the American worker. However, Americans expressed their discontent Monday by organizing more than one thousand Workers over Billionaires demonstrations.

In Chicago, where Trump has threatened to carry out the next phase of his illegal law enforcement takeover of Democratic cities, hundreds of workers from dozens of unions marched in protest of the Trump administration. “No Troops in Chicago,” read one protester’s sign, while others had slogans about “Families Over Billionaires,” and “Education Not Deportation.”

Stacy Davis Gates, head of the Chicago Teachers Union, delivered remarks condemning Trump’s efforts to tamper with government institutions that were built by workers, for workers.

“Lincoln didn’t free us. We freed ourselves, workers. Our work created the Departments of Housing, Education. Labor, and more. We built the United States as we’ve known it, and now workers will protect it,” Gates said, according to the union’s post on X.

Across the country, unions in Boston, Massachusetts organized the city’s first Labor Day parade in decades. Governor Maura Healey and Senator Elizabeth Warren marched alongside union leaders and thousands of protesters. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and Senator Ed Markey made remarks to the demonstrators at City Hall.

“We won’t let you get away with kicking our loved ones off health care to fund tax breaks for the rich,” said Wu, according to The Boston Globe. “We won’t let you sweep the Epstein files under your Qatari jet.”

In Los Angeles, AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler joined members of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor as they rallied in Long Beach. The May Day Strong movement, the group behind the nationwide protests, was backed by the AFL-CIO, which includes 63 national and international unions that represent more than 15 million working people. Worker demonstrations were planned all across Southern California, and hundreds marched in the northern part of the state in San Francisco.

Near Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York, a crowd of several hundred people gathered to protest the president, holding signs asking “Which Side Are You On?” according to The New York Times.

The demonstrations weren’t confined to larger U.S. cities.

In Durham, North Carolina, hundreds of workers marched at Duke University, and protesters strode down the streets of Asheville demanding, “Power to the people!”

In Albuquerque, New Mexico, 6,000 people took to the streets, according to the American Federation of Teachers. Des Moines, Iowa, Seattle, Washington, St. Louis, Missouri, and Detroit, Michigan were among the other cities where demonstrators gathered.

Across the country, people showed up to express their resounding rage with America’s first billionaire president, who seems bent on reshaping the American economy to benefit his family, and his wealthy friends—while sending prices soaring, sparking an economic slowdown, and making plans to gut essential programs like Medicaid and Social Security.

On Tuesday, The Boston Globe revealed that the Justice Department lawyer pushing Donald Trump’s war against Harvard University for alleged complicity in campus antisemitism once wrote a college paper from the perspective of Adolf Hitler.

When Michael Velchik was a senior at Harvard in 2011, studying Classics, he was assigned to write a brief paper in Latin “from the perspective of a controversial historical or literary figure justifying your actions and defending yourself against potential accusations.” Students could choose a “classical figure such as Nero or Cleopatra; a mythological figure such as Medea or Theseus; or anyone from the post-classical world, whether a Shakespearean villain or a twentieth-century tycoon.”

Velchik chose Hitler, according to three sources of the Globe—two of whom had read the paper and considered it disturbing. “At Harvard in 2011, no one would say that Hitler was a controversial figure,” an unnamed source said.

The instructor, dismayed, reportedly had Velchik redo the assignment.

Fast-forward 18 months—when Velchik was getting ready to matriculate at Harvard Law School—and, per the Globe, he told a peer that Hitler’s manifesto, Mein Kampf, was his favorite book he’d read that year. “[I]s it bad that my favorite class at harvard was nietzsche and my favorite book i’ve read this year is mein kampf?” he wrote in a June 2013 email.

After starting at Harvard Law, Velchik offered additional thoughts on Hitler’s book in another email to a peer. Sharing quick reviews of 76 books he’d recently read, he called Mein Kampf “fascinating,” and wrote of its author, “He certainly excelled as an orator, and his writing reflects oratory.… Understands the importance of propaganda. Thought that the timing of a speech was important: better late at night!”

Velchik omitted to mention Hitler’s responsibility for the Holocaust.

And he wasn’t as impressed with other books as he’d been with Mein Kampf. Velchik was critical of Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights, which he said “reminded” him why he didn’t “usually read books written by women.”

The Republican-led House Oversight Committee will meet with 10 victims of serial sexual abuser and wealthy socialite Jeffrey Epstein. The meeting will seek to shed more light on “the possible mismanagement of the federal government’s investigation of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell, the circumstances and subsequent investigations of Mr. Epstein’s death, the operation of sex-trafficking rings and ways for the federal government to effectively combat them, and potential violations of ethics rules related to elected officials,” Oversight Chair James Comer noted.

This bipartisan effort comes after months of distraction and denial from the Trump administration—from Attorney General Pam Bondi first claiming she had the Epstein files on her desk, to later saying there actually were no files and the case was effectively closed, to President Trump himself proclaiming that anyone who still cared about the said files is a big stupid idiot. That fiasco only fed more attention to the case, and now nearly 70 percent of the country believes that someone in the government (perhaps … the president) is hiding something. House Speaker Mike Johnson even called summer recess early to avoid having to vote on Epstein related issues. Now, as Congress returns, eyes are turning back to it.

If the House Oversight’s move wasn’t concerning enough for the Trump administration, Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie will be holding a public press conference at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday morning. “I pray Speaker Johnson will listen to the pleas of these victims for justice and quit trying to block a vote on our legislation to release the Epstein files,” Massie wrote on X.

Massie and Khanna filed a bipartisan discharge petition calling on the Justice Department to release the Epstein files in full. The move struck a nerve with Trump, who called Massie “the worst Republican congressman.”

We’ll see if Trump has anything more to say on Wednesday morning.

“These victims haven’t spoken for decades. When Epstein got that lenient plea deal, no one talked to the victims or their lawyers,” Khanna said to Fox News Digital on Monday. “There are a lot of other rich, powerful men, politicians, business leaders, who have committed abuse and who have not been held accountable. That’s what we’re going to hear on September 3, and people are going to be outraged, and I don’t see how, after that, the House can’t vote for the release of these files.”

Owen Shroyer, a host for Infowars, announced Monday that he is leaving the conspiracy-driven news platform due to a fight with its founder, Alex Jones. Jones believed Shroyer was too “anti-Trump,” according to the outgoing host.

“I have nothing but respect and appreciation for Alex and everything we’ve done at Infowars,” Shroyer said in a livestream late Monday. “I’m not sure that was mutual, but it doesn’t really matter.”

Prior to his decision to leave, Shroyer said, “Alex had been coming into my show [War Room], and talking about how I’m negative and calling me a pessimist, and all this other stuff, which is fine.” Shroyer said. “He says I’m too negative, he says I’m a pessimist, whatever, I’m too anti-Trump.”

Shroyer decided to take time off, thinking “maybe he’s right.” But their issues persisted when he returned.

“It’s not to say that I didn’t have creative control over the Infowars War Room,” Shroyer said. “But I mean, imagine. It’s like somebody staring over your back 24/7. And so every single day that I came back, it was either a guest I was told I had on at the last minute or it was him coming into the studio—he wants me to cover this, he wants me to cover that.”

On Thursday, these frustrations came to a head, as Shroyer said he prepared a three-hour show that he thought he would host where a “babysitter wouldn’t be looking over my shoulder.”

“I was wrong,” he continued. “It happened, and I just said I’m out.”

On air, Jones attributed Shroyer’s absence to a family emergency, but, Shroyer said, “There was no family emergency. I walked off the show.”

Jones on X Tuesday said he wishes Shroyer the best, but denied insinuations of censorship, which he claimed were drummed up to promote the departing host’s next venture.

“I only encouraged him to be more positive in general about the fact that humanity has come a long way in the great awakening,” Jones wrote—the “great awakening” referring to a time during which humanity is “waking up” to the supposed sinister plans of a global elite cabal. “I am surprised by the censorship claim he is hinting at but if he thinks he needs to say that to build his show that will be on him.”

A new poll has found that Americans have lost faith in the American dream. 

A July 2025 Wall Street Journal-NORC survey found that nearly 70 percent of registered voters said that the idea that “if you work hard, you will get ahead,” no longer held true, or never did. The Journal reported that it was the highest percentage in nearly 15 years of surveys. 

Forty-six percent of respondents said that the ideal once held true but not anymore, and 23 percent said it never held true—a five point increase from the previous two years of surveys. 

The survey also found that pessimism was plaguing Democratic voters: 90 percent of Democrats held a negative view of prospects for themselves and their children, while only 55 percent of Republicans felt down about their futures. 

Across generations and demographics, respondents fretted that the next generation would struggle to buy homes or save for retirement, and believed that the previous generation had an easier time securing homes, being full-time parents, and launching businesses.

An engine for some of this uncertainty is the substantial disconnect between the traditional measures of economic growth and the real economic experiences of Americans. While the economy was comparatively robust under President Joe Biden, many Americans still experienced economic hardship. That disconnect was part of why President Donald Trump was elected into office, where he has promised to improve the nation’s economy—and managed to destabilize the global one.  

Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs have decimated key trading partnerships, obliterated thousands of jobs across the country, and sent prices soaring—with even worse to come. The Trump administration’s silver lining: You and your children, and your children’s children, can work in the same factory forever.

Is it any surprise, then, that the survey also found that American exceptionalism has taken a hit? Only 17 percent percent of respondents said that America had the best economy in the world, while 40 percent said other nations had better economies—a 15 point increase from 2021. 

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration’s use of military troops in Los Angeles was a blatant, illegal violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Breyer has blocked the president from deploying the National Guard to California again. 

“Congress spoke clearly in 1878 when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting the use of the U.S. military to execute domestic law. Nearly 140 years later, Defendants— President Trump, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and the Department of Defense— deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, ostensibly to quell a rebellion and ensure that federal immigration law was enforced,” Breyer wrote in his decision. 

“There were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some individuals engaged in violence,” he continued. “Yet there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.... Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.” 

Breyer put the ruling on hold for 10 days, as the Trump administration is likely to appeal.

The president sent 4,000 National Guards troops and 700 active-duty Marines  to Los Angeles after he claimed that “violent mobs” were attacking ICE officers—the same officers snatching their friends, family, and neighbors from their homes and workplaces. That was a clear exaggeration then, and now Breyer has made it known now that it was a complete violation of U.S. law as well. 

This move, if extended, will likely have a significant impact on Trump’s stated plans to expand his military takeover of Washington, D.C., to other cities like New York, Baltimore, and Chicago. The president has used exaggerated numbers and descriptions of these cities in recent weeks as his federal takeover of D.C. continues, serving at least in some capacity as a trial run for similar actions elsewhere. 

This story has been updated. 

Iowa Senator Joni Ernst reportedly told confidantes that she would not seek reelection in the 2026 midterms.

Multiple sources told CBS News that Ernst plans to announce her decision next Thursday.

The Iowa Republican’s apparent decision comes just a few months after a horrifying gaffe at a town hall.

When constituents expressed concerns that people would die as a result of President Donald Trump’s behemoth budget bill, she responded by saying, “Well, we all are going to die.” And as voters reeled from her callous comment about millions of Americans being booted from their Medicaid coverage, Ernst doubled down.

The senator’s comments seriously tainted her political reputation, sparking widespread speculation that she would not run again. But Ernst sent mixed signals, refusing to say whether or not she would seek another term.

In June, she brought on Bryan Kraber to manage her 2026 reelection campaign, signaling her intent to turn her sinking ship around. But she also delayed her annual “Roast and Ride” fundraiser until October. Typically, Ernst—who has been in office since 2015—holds the event in June.

A few Iowa Democrats have already waded into the race, including State Senator Zach Wahls, Des Moines School Board chairwoman Jackie Norris, and State Representatives J.D. Scholten and Josh Turek. Turek even used Ernst’s infamous existential blunder in an ad announcing his candidacy for her Senate seat.

As recently as last week, Ernst claimed she wasn’t concerned about Democratic challengers in her state. “Bring it on, folks. Because I tell you, at the end of the day, Iowa is going to be red,” she said.

One source told CBS News that Ernst feels that she achieved her goal of serving two terms, and now intends to head for the private sector.

This story has been updated.

Judge Zia M. Faruqui has handed yet another legal defeat to Trump-appointed D.C. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, calling her attempt to jail a local attorney and West Point graduate “one of the weakest requests for detention” he’d ever seen, according to WUSA9.

Anthony Bryant, who served a tour in Afghanistan, was arrested early Monday morning on charges of assaulting, resisting or impeding police, threatening a federal official and threatening to kidnap or injure a person.

Pirro’s office alleged that Bryant approached National Guardsmen who were patrolling 14th Street on Sunday night and allegedly yelled “These are our streets!” and “I’ll kill you.” Pirro also claims that Byrant “threw his shoulder” into one of the Guardsmen’s shoulders. The police found a legally registered handgun on Bryant when they arrested him.

Bryant was released after his initial arrest, but then arrested again and placed in jail on Wednesday on the order of Judge G. Michael Harvey. On Thursday, Judge Faruqui stepped in.

“This is perhaps one of the weakest requests for detention I have seen and something that, prior to two weeks ago, would have been unthinkable in this courthouse,” Faruqui said, adding that the government has a “as close to zero” chance of demonstrating Bryant was a real threat.

Bryant’s attorneys also alleged that the police report failed to mention that Guardsmen yelled slurs at Bryant, who is Black. There is no video of the alleged scene because National Guardsmen conveniently don’t wear body cameras. This made the prosecution’s claims virtually impossible to prove.

“To charge people for what seems to be lesser conduct and then say they’re so dangerous they have to be locked up,” Faruqui said. “It puts prosecutors in an impossible position.”

Bryant was released by Faruqui, ordered to hand over his firearms, and advised to avoid tense situations. Faruqui also noted that Harvey and Pirro’s urge to throw Bryant in jail for such a minor infraction was contradictory to the Justice Department’s release of hundreds of January 6 rioters who’d been jailed on charges much more serious than Bryant’s.

This all comes as Pirro’s office failed to convince three different grand juries that a D.C. woman deserved a felony charge for allegedly placing herself between ICE agents and someone they were detaining. They also failed to charge the Subway Sandwich Thrower with a felony.