While taking questions in the Oval Office today, President Trump was asked about one of the most pressing matters in our nation — the lettuce causing “explosive diarrhea” in many states. Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked him when it will be “safe to eat lettuce” again, to which President Trump gave an absolutely hilarious response. “Are you eating lettuce recently?” he asked Peter before telling him to, “get out of here,” if he was! Then, President Trump went on to joke that he is going to have to put a major tariff on Mexico for sending in the lettuce, along with a tariff on Canada for the wildfire smoke blowing into parts of the United States. Watch President Trump’s full answer here: JUST IN: President Trump announces Mexico will be PUNISHED for sending in lettuce to our country that's giving people "explosive diarrhea" "We're going to put a MAJOR TARIFF on Mexico because of the lettuce, and we're going to put a BIG tariff on Canada because of the smoke,… pic.twitter.com/lErHYSL1ch — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) July 24, 2026 President Trump might be kidding, but it may not be a bad idea! His idea is generating quite the buzz online. Some of these comments are just hilarious: Imagine waking up from a 10 year coma and seeing this headline right outta the gate. https://t.co/OqrYjBoU31 — Spencer Pratt (@spencerpratt) July 24, 2026 @pdoocy That has to be the first time the words ‘explosive diarrhea’ were uttered in the Oval Office since Biden’s term. — ElvisUSA (@ElvisUSA) July 24, 2026 In Michigan, you get both so you don’t dare cough. — Tomatofan (@Tomatofan) July 24, 2026 The recent outbreak of cyclospora, a parasite that causes gastrointestinal issues, has been linked to lettuce sold by Taylor Farms originating from Central Mexico. This contaminated lettuce was distributed to many stores and restaurants in the United States, including Taco Bell. So far, nearly 2,000 people across nine states have fallen ill from it. Along with the diarrhea lettuce coming in from Mexico, smoke from wildfires in Toronto has been blowing in across the Northeast and Midwest. Here’s some footage of a massive smoke plume in New York: New York was covered in smoke from wildfires in Canada A thick layer of smog blanketed the city’s sky, while the smell of burning spread through the streets. A massive smoke plume from large-scale wildfires in neighboring Canada covered a huge area and worsened air quality. New… pic.twitter.com/3cEwU0icJC — NEXTA (@nexta_tv) July 17, 2026 USA Today shared more details on both situations: A CDC outbreak update released Friday, July 24, reported 4,173 laboratory-confirmed cases of the disease since May 1. The CDC said that an additional 7,400 cases, many in Michigan and Ohio, have not yet been confirmed. The number of states reporting cases grew to 41 in this latest CDC update, but those cases may not all be part of ongoing outbreaks. USA TODAY research suggests cases of cyclosporiasis, the infection caused by the microscopic parasite Cyclospora and known to cause severe diarrhea, have been reported in all but four states. Apart from the ongoing cyclosporiasis outbreak, wildfire smoke from Canadian wildfires has left skies in some parts of the United States blackened and under an orange blaze. Smoke from out-of-control wildfires created horrible air pollution in Toronto, which on July 15, had the worst pollution in the world. In the United States, New York City ranked fifth worst, according to IQAir, a Swiss air quality technology company. What are your thoughts? TAP HERE TO ADD YOUR VOTE This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post President Trump Addresses “Explosive Diarrhea” Outbreak: “We’re Going to Put a Major Tariff on Mexico!” appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

A House Democrat has set her sights on Barron Trump. Rep. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona is demanding that Republican House Oversight Chairman James Comer open an investigation into alleged political interference surrounding Andrew and Tristan Tate. She also wants President Trump’s youngest son hauled in to answer questions under oath. The demand is real. No subpoena has been issued, no lawsuit has been filed, and Ansari’s letter does not accuse Barron of committing a crime. Andrew and Tristan Tate have been indicted on horrific charges of rape, human trafficking, and the exploitation of minors. Chair @RepJamesComer must swiftly open an investigation into the Tate brothers’ coordination and extensive relationships with members of the President’s… pic.twitter.com/FflTbMvgi1 — Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (@RepYassAnsari) July 23, 2026 Ansari’s July 23 letter asks Comer to issue subpoenas for Justice Department and State Department records concerning the Tate brothers’ extradition and legal matters. She also seeks White House and federal-agency visitor logs, communications with the Tates or their representatives, and records involving members of President Trump’s family. Then comes the extraordinary part: Ansari asks the committee to compel testimony from Barron Trump. Her proposed questioning would cover his knowledge of the brothers’ alleged crimes, whether he had “any involvement whatsoever,” and whether he communicated with his father or administration officials about their legal proceedings. Barron holds no government office and has no formal role in the administration. Ansari’s letter presents no evidence that he influenced an extradition decision, directed a federal official or committed any offense. It leans on press accounts and public claims about contacts between Andrew Tate and people around the Trump family, then asks Congress to determine whether those relationships affected government policy. That is a serious allegation wrapped around a very thin public case against Barron himself. Under the House Oversight Committee rules, subpoena power rests with the chairman and the committee. The chairman may authorize and issue subpoenas for investigations within the panel’s jurisdiction, while formal committee action can also authorize compulsory process. Ansari is a Democratic minority member. She can demand an investigation, release a letter and turn up the political pressure, but she cannot sign a binding subpoena to Barron on her own authority. Comer controls the next move. His published rules also place deposition decisions with the chairman after consultation with the ranking minority member, and any enforceable demand would have to follow the committee’s formal process. No public announcement from Comer had confirmed a Barron subpoena as of publication. Ansari has launched a congressional pressure campaign; the legal force behind it remains in Republican hands. The scope of her request was laid out on Capitol Hill: Arizona Rep. Yassamin Ansari presses Oversight chair Comer to probe "potential political interference and improper conduct by the federal government" on the Tate brothers. She wants subpoenas for DOJ and State on extradition, WH and agency logs and testimony from Barron Trump https://t.co/0V5gCfeuhQ pic.twitter.com/fSgeDhKw6I — Andrew Solender (@AndrewSolender) July 23, 2026 The timing comes from the Tate brothers’ rapidly escalating legal trouble. The Crown Prosecution Service announced on July 19 that British prosecutors had authorized further charges involving four additional alleged victims. Andrew Tate faces new rape, trafficking, assault and indecent-image counts, while Tristan Tate faces new rape, sexual-assault and trafficking counts. U.S. Marshals arrested the brothers in the United States on July 18. British prosecutors said they would seek extradition on 21 earlier charges as well as the newly authorized charges. The CPS says the combined cases now involve seven alleged victims and alleged conduct dating from 2010 through 2017. The brothers have denied wrongdoing in the cases against them. Those accusations are grave, and the criminal proceedings are active. The CPS also stressed that charging decisions are not findings of guilt, that the defendants retain the right to a fair trial, and that only a court can determine the facts. Ansari is trying to connect that criminal storm to an American political-influence theory. Her letter cites alleged direct communications between Andrew Tate and Barron, along with contacts between the brothers and other figures in President Trump’s orbit. Public claims about a Barron-Tate relationship have been disputed, and the letter supplies no messages, call records or witness account showing that Barron asked the federal government to help either brother. There is an enormous difference between knowing a controversial internet personality and secretly steering United States policy for him. The administration’s public position also runs against the idea of a rescue operation. During a July 23 White House briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked whether President Trump planned to intervene in the Tate extradition process. Her answer was a flat “No.” The extradition must move through federal court before the State Department reaches a final surrender decision. The brothers are in custody while that process proceeds. The administration’s refusal to intervene publicly weakens the claim that it is presently trying to shield the Tates. It does not settle whether private lobbying or earlier contacts occurred, which is why records could provide a clearer answer. Ansari is asking Comer to chase that broader theory. Her letter currently offers no documented act by Barron that caused a federal decision, no identified order he gave and no criminal allegation against him. Ansari erased any doubt about the person she wants in the crosshairs with a blunt follow-up Friday: I said what I said. Investigate Barron. https://t.co/VmWg9THQuy — Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (@RepYassAnsari) July 24, 2026 That wording gives away the political posture. She did not say “investigate the extradition process.” She said, “Investigate Barron.” If Ansari has evidence that Barron pressured federal officials, she should produce it. If Comer uncovers evidence of improper interference, the committee should follow it wherever it leads. Congressional subpoena power is a serious instrument. Pointing it at the president’s 20-year-old son on the strength of disputed relationship claims should require more than a viral slogan. For now, Barron has not been served with a subpoena, charged with a crime or accused in court of helping the Tates. A Democratic congresswoman has still made clear that she wants him dragged into the investigation. Whether Comer gives her that weapon is the next—and far more consequential—question. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post Democrat Rep. Launches Legal Plot Against Barron Trump appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

Joe Biden had until August 3 to keep fighting. He walked away ten days early. On Friday, Biden’s attorneys filed a one-page notice of voluntary dismissal in his separate lawsuit against the Justice Department. The filing dismisses the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The lawsuit sought to stop DOJ from handing over redacted recordings and transcripts of Biden’s 2016 and 2017 conversations with memoir writer Mark Zwonitzer. Those interviews later became evidence in Special Counsel Robert Hur’s classified-documents investigation. The phrase “without prejudice” leaves a technical opening for another lawsuit, but it cannot put released recordings back under seal. If DOJ distributes the files first, any follow-up case would collide with the very problem Biden’s lawyers stressed throughout the litigation: disclosure cannot be undone. Biden’s retreat removes the immediate obstacle his lawyers had built around delivery of the material to the House Judiciary Committee. The Associated Press reported that he could have asked the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the matter or petitioned the Supreme Court; he chose neither route while DOJ still controls the release timing and final redactions. The Oversight Project, which is connected to the Heritage Foundation plaintiffs seeking the records, celebrated Friday: COMPLETE AND TOTAL VICTORY over President "Autopen" Biden "Autopen" Biden declined to seek further review of the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, paving the way for the release of the interview tapes with his ghostwriter. pic.twitter.com/p6Vl3Oi1TT — Oversight Project (@ItsYourGov) July 24, 2026 The surrender follows a bruising appellate defeat. In its July 20 order, a divided D.C. Circuit panel denied Biden’s emergency request for an injunction pending appeal. Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judge Gregory Katsas formed the majority, while Judge Florence Pan dissented. The majority ruled that Biden failed to show he was likely to succeed in keeping the records hidden under federal privacy exemptions. It found a substantial public interest in examining evidence that Special Counsel Hur used both to assess Biden’s handling of classified information and to decide against criminal charges. DOJ’s redactions mattered. According to the court, the proposed release removes references to illness, death and non-public family members, leaving material that largely concerns foreign policy and Biden’s decision to stay out of the 2016 presidential race. The judges also rejected Biden’s separate privacy claim concerning the sound of his voice. The majority noted that Hur drew conclusions from tone and delivery that a written transcript alone could not fully convey. The court kept its administrative injunction in place until August 3 so Biden could seek further review. Friday’s filing ended the wait by his own choice. There is an important distinction here. These are the Zwonitzer memoir recordings from 2016 and 2017. They are separate from Biden’s October 2023 interview with Hur, audio of which surfaced publicly in 2025. Zwonitzer helped Biden write two memoirs, including the 2017 book Promise Me, Dad. Hur’s investigators obtained the writer’s recordings under an agreement limiting their use to the special counsel investigation, turning private source material into federal law-enforcement records subject to a later Freedom of Information Act fight. DOJ originally resisted release under FOIA privacy exemptions. After President Trump returned to office and the department completed additional redactions, DOJ reversed course and said the public interest now outweighed Biden’s reduced privacy interest. A Justice Department summary of the district-court decision says the department acknowledged that reversal, notified Biden’s lawyers and engaged in extensive consultation before reaching its final disclosure decision. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich reviewed the proposed redactions privately. She found that the remaining material omitted the most sensitive family subjects and that DOJ had reasonably explained why public scrutiny of Hur’s investigation outweighed the remaining privacy concerns. That decision carried a narrow but powerful point: Hur publicly relied on the recordings, including their tone, while explaining a politically explosive declination. The public interest lies in hearing the evidence used to reach that decision instead of accepting an investigator’s description as the last word. Biden argued that the Trump Justice Department had weaponized disclosure for political retribution. Friedrich concluded that alleged political motives did not erase the department’s stated reasoning or make its revised FOIA judgment arbitrary. Judge Pan saw the balance differently. Her dissent emphasized that the conversations took place inside Biden’s home, were gathered during an investigation that produced no indictment and remained private even after the most personal passages were removed. Pan warned that disclosure would moot Biden’s appeal before the courts could resolve every legal issue. She would have preserved the status quo and allowed the case to proceed. Biden has now made that warning academic by abandoning further review himself. The recordings matter because Special Counsel Robert Hur concluded that criminal charges were unwarranted while also describing evidence that Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified material after leaving the vice presidency. One recorded exchange became especially notorious. Biden told Zwonitzer that he had “just found all the classified stuff downstairs,” a remark Hur cited while reconstructing how sensitive records were handled. Hur ultimately concluded that prosecutors would face serious obstacles proving willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt. His report also predicted that Biden could appear to a jury as a sympathetic elderly man with memory problems, language that ignited a national debate over Biden’s fitness for office. The appellate majority said the public has a weighty interest in evaluating whether investigators possessed incriminating evidence and still “pulled their punches.” The redacted recordings offer Americans a chance to judge that question with their own ears. Biden’s privacy argument was substantial enough to win a dissent from a federal appellate judge. It was not strong enough to win the injunction he needed. Then came Friday’s dismissal. The August 3 clock did not beat Biden. He stopped the fight himself. DOJ should now release the lawfully redacted record promptly and tell the public exactly what remains withheld. After years of lawyers, privilege claims and competing political narratives, the evidence is finally closer to speaking for itself. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post Joe Biden Gives Up, Declines to Seek Further Review of Appeals Court Ruling on Release of Audiotapes with Ghostwriter appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

A legal war that has been building for weeks just exploded into a 26-jurisdiction courtroom showdown. And the fight is much bigger than one pot of federal money. Twenty-five states and Washington, D.C., filed an 85-page federal complaint Thursday against two agencies in President Trump’s administration. The coalition is asking a judge to block a set of conditions attached to emergency-preparedness and homeland-security grants. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The named defendants are the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, acting FEMA head Robert J. Fenton and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin. The coalition includes 24 attorneys general plus the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. California, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island are leading the case. The immediate financial stakes are enormous. According to the federal court complaint, the plaintiff states were allocated more than $740 million through the fiscal year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program. DHS and FEMA plan to hold back at least 20% until the states satisfy the disputed conditions. That places at least $148 million in immediate jeopardy, the states say. Continued noncompliance could threaten even more. The complaint describes where that money goes. It supports state bomb squads, SWAT teams, fusion centers, emergency communications, cybersecurity programs, search-and-rescue units and specialized teams trained to respond to terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. Many awards remain open for three years, so a fight over one funding cycle can disrupt programs long after the fiscal year ends. But money is only the leverage. The real fight is over who gets to set the rules for American elections. The administration’s conditions require states to use the federal SAVE system to verify the citizenship of people in state voter-registration databases. They also require affected jurisdictions to move away from voting systems that rely on bar codes or QR codes and toward equipment that accepts hand-marked paper ballots. States must conduct a manual audit covering at least 5% of ballots, reconcile the number of participating voters with the number of ballots cast and provide DHS with evidence of compliance. Those are the election-security demands at the heart of the lawsuit. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, one of the plaintiffs, framed them as a federal attempt to seize control from the states. BREAKING: I’m suing the Trump Administration for holding millions of public safety dollars hostage in an attempt to take control of our elections. Donald Trump is actively threatening the safety of our communities and withholding resources from our law enforcement officers and… — Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) July 23, 2026 That is the coalition’s argument in its most politically charged form. The states say election administration belongs primarily to them and that Congress never authorized DHS or FEMA to rewrite state election law through antiterrorism grants. They call the 20% holdback a financial penalty designed to force changes Congress never enacted. That puts the funding mechanism itself under a federal judge’s microscope. The political reality is just as striking: the requirements these officials are fighting include paper ballots, manual audits, voter-and-ballot reconciliation and citizenship checks. Those are not shadowy demands hidden in a classified memo. They appear in the administration’s published grant terms. The official fiscal year 2026 grant notice puts the full Homeland Security Grant Program at $1.064 billion, with 56 awards expected. The program funds the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative and Operation Stonegarden. The money supports counterterrorism, emergency response, cybersecurity, border coordination and protection for high-risk public spaces. It is not a small or symbolic program. The application window closes July 24. The notice makes election security a national priority and keeps one-fifth of the relevant state and urban-area awards out of reach until DHS accepts the recipient’s proof of compliance. DHS’s position is that election systems are critical infrastructure and that the federal government has a legitimate interest in demanding stronger safeguards before releasing the full award. Secretary Mullin defended that broader push the same day the lawsuit was filed. President Trump is leading from the front on election security.@DHSGOV is partnering with the states to secure their elections—but we can’t do it alone. ONLY Americans should decide American elections. PASS THE SAVE ACT. pic.twitter.com/StojTgST8s — Secretary Markwayne Mullin (@SecMullinDHS) July 23, 2026 FEMA offered an even more direct response after the suit landed. In a statement reported by CBS News, the agency dismissed the challenge as partisan resistance to common-sense election protections. FEMA said states must take concrete steps to protect election integrity before receiving their complete Homeland Security Grant Program awards. The agency also argued that election security is national security. That is the bridge the administration is using to connect voting procedures to a program best known for funding first responders, bomb squads, cybersecurity, disaster preparation and protection for vulnerable public sites. The states want the court to tear down that bridge. Their complaint invokes both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution’s Spending Clause. It argues that Congress did not give DHS or FEMA authority to attach these sweeping conditions, that the agencies failed to follow lawful decision-making procedures and that the terms are vague, coercive or unrelated to the grants’ statutory purposes. What are your thoughts? TAP HERE TO ADD YOUR VOTE The election provisions are only one branch of the case. The coalition is also challenging immigration-enforcement conditions that could require states to assist with federal civil immigration operations. And it objects to language allowing FEMA to terminate grants when an award no longer advances agency priorities or the government’s view of the national interest. The California Department of Justice says those provisions put billions of dollars in broader emergency-management funding at risk and create uncertainty for long-term programs. Its announcement points to grants that pay for emergency staff, counterterrorism work and preparations for natural disasters or mass-casualty events. California also points to two earlier cases brought in the same Rhode Island federal court. In 2025, the court blocked immigration conditions attached to FEMA funding. It later stopped DHS from redirecting homeland-security money away from jurisdictions the administration considered insufficiently supportive of its agenda. The new complaint openly builds on those victories. One of the earlier rulings is on appeal, but the coalition clearly believes it has found a favorable battlefield. California says it and its cities receive roughly $150 million from HSGP each year. Another FEMA program named in the fight helps states pay the emergency-management personnel who prepare for natural disasters and mass-casualty events. The Illinois Attorney General’s office says the latest terms would force states to undo years of election-system planning and spend millions to satisfy policies unrelated to terrorism prevention. Illinois receives more than $40 million in HSGP funding each year for state and local readiness. Illinois also objects that DHS has not disclosed the methodology states must use to reconcile voters and ballots. Its filing says state officials could be forced to abandon years of work and large investments while the midterm election is already approaching. The same money supports preparations for terrorism, cyberattacks and other major threats. That is why the state says the election conditions are disconnected from the purpose Congress assigned to the grant. That explains why the pressure is real. It does not settle whether the pressure is lawful. The judge’s task is narrower than choosing the best voting system. The court will have to decide whether DHS and FEMA may use these particular grants to require hand-marked paper ballots, citizenship verification and manual audits. That distinction matters. A state can support citizen-only voting and still argue that an executive agency exceeded its authority. The lawsuit itself does not prove that every plaintiff opposes every election-security measure on the merits. At the same time, voters are entitled to notice what their officials are willing to fight in court. Many Americans have spent years asking for auditable paper ballots, cleaner voter rolls and a reliable way to confirm that only citizens participate in federal elections. The Trump administration has now tied real financial consequences to those demands. Twenty-five states and Washington, D.C., are telling a federal judge that the administration crossed the line. The administration is telling the country that election security is too important to fund without accountability. Now the question moves from political speeches to a courtroom. And with the midterm elections approaching, this is one legal fight neither side can afford to treat as routine. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post 25 States Launch Legal Showdown Against President Trump’s Administration — Here’s What They Want A Judge To Stop appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

A federal judge quietly put one of President Trump’s anti-censorship tools on ice, and the ruling is back in the headlines today. The decision itself is ten days old. Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg signed the order on July 14, well before it began recirculating as fresh news. That date matters. So does what Boasberg actually did, because the ruling is narrower in some ways—and more consequential in others—than the breathless summaries suggest. Fox News Digital brought the July 14 decision back into focus Friday, while the court’s 58-page memorandum opinion spells out the legal mechanics. Boasberg did not enter a final judgment killing every effort to keep foreign censors out of the United States. He stayed the challenged State Department policy under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act while the case proceeds. The court concluded that the Coalition for Independent Technology Research was likely to show the policy burdened protected speech and association based on viewpoint. That finding was enough for temporary relief, but it was not a final ruling on the merits. Boasberg also acknowledged that the federal government has a legitimate interest in confronting foreign officials who use sovereign power to suppress protected American speech. His problem was the distance between that stated target and the broader enforcement record placed before him. Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt, who fought the Biden-era censorship machine as his state’s attorney general, had a blunt response to the ruling: BREAKING: Rogue Judge Boasberg blocked President Trump’s visa limits on the Censorship Industrial Complex. In Missouri v. Biden, I exposed the largest government censorship operation in U.S. history. Bad judges abandoned the victims. Now Boasberg protects foreign censors. pic.twitter.com/BhnkNerdkP — Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) July 22, 2026 Schmitt’s point goes straight to the political heart of the case: a visa is a privilege, not a constitutional entitlement, and the American people should not be forced to welcome foreign actors who work to restrict their speech. The legal fight, however, turned on how the State Department defined and applied that principle. The dispute began with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s May 2025 visa-restriction announcement and widened with the Department’s December actions against figures in the global censorship network. Rubio said foreign officials should not be allowed to threaten Americans over social-media posts or force U.S. technology companies to adopt censorship policies that reach inside this country. The policy relied on a provision of federal immigration law allowing the secretary of state to deem a foreign national inadmissible when that person’s entry could carry serious adverse foreign-policy consequences. Certain family members could also be covered. By December, consular officers had reportedly been instructed to examine applicants’ work histories, resumes, social-media accounts and media appearances for involvement in fact-checking, content moderation, “trust and safety,” and efforts to combat so-called misinformation. The Department then targeted five people, including former European Commissioner Thierry Breton, Global Disinformation Index co-founder Clare Melford and Imran Ahmed of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. That enforcement history became the weak point Boasberg seized. The government told the court that the policy was aimed at people involved with foreign governments and foreign censorship regimes. Boasberg said the record showed something broader. In his view, the policy had also reached private researchers, nonprofit leaders and platform workers whose alleged “censorship” consisted of reports, ratings, petitions, advocacy and demands for more aggressive content moderation. That distinction drove the First Amendment analysis. The judge found that the policy appeared to punish one side of a debate: people who favor more moderation, more disinformation labels, more restrictions and more pressure on platforms. Someone arguing for less moderation had no comparable reason to fear immigration consequences. Boasberg called that likely viewpoint discrimination. Importantly, he did not hold that every use of the policy was illegitimate. The opinion specifically recognized a valid core involving foreign officials who use government power to coerce American platforms or suppress protected expression in the United States. He even wrote that the administration’s July 2025 action against Brazilian judicial officials at least fit that description, whatever the ultimate merits of those individual cases. The trouble came when the same policy was used against private actors without a demonstrated connection to foreign sovereign power. That is also why the relief extended beyond a few named members of the coalition. Boasberg ruled that an APA stay operates on the legal force of the agency action itself. He therefore suspended the challenged policy pending resolution of the lawsuit, rather than merely ordering the government to leave a handful of plaintiffs alone. At the same time, he rejected the coalition’s demand for a sweeping protective order that would have restricted the government’s use of information disclosed during the case and broadly prohibited retaliation. That request was denied without prejudice. So the policy is paused, not buried. The State Department remains free to enforce immigration law on other grounds, make individualized foreign-policy determinations and appeal Boasberg’s interim order. The administration can also defend the policy as the case moves toward a final decision. The opinion itself offers a roadmap for the next move. If the Trump administration ties enforcement tightly to foreign officials—and private actors genuinely working with them—who use sovereign power to censor Americans, the legal target becomes much harder to hit. If the policy treats every foreign fact-checker, researcher or moderation advocate as part of a censorship regime without proving that government connection, Boasberg has made clear where he believes the constitutional vulnerability lies. That is a setback for the administration, but it is not the final word. The original instinct behind the policy remains sound: foreign governments do not get to export their speech controls into the American town square, and the United States does not owe entry privileges to officials who try. Now Rubio and the Justice Department must decide whether to appeal, narrow the policy’s reach or prove that its enforcement record is closer to that legitimate target than Boasberg concluded. The July 14 order bought the censorship network breathing room. It did not end the fight. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post Judge Boasberg Quietly Blocked President Trump’s Anti-Censorship Visa Policy — Here’s What The Order Actually Does appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.