“How should I determine who the contemner or contemners are?” federal District Court Judge James Boasberg asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Immigration Litigation Drew Ensign. A contemner is someone said to be in contempt of court. In an at-times contentious hearing on Thursday, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told the Justice Department lawyer that he thought the Trump administration had disobeyed his verbal court order to turn around three planes heading to El Salvador carrying more than 238 illegal migrants accused by the Trump administration of being members of the Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs.  “It seems to me there’s a fair likelihood that that is not correct; in fact, that the government acted in bad faith throughout that day,” Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said in court. The Trump administration, for its part, maintained that it had followed the judge’s written order on 7:27 p.m. on March 15 that halted what the administration viewed as the enforcement of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. However, Boasberg also gave an oral order earlier in the day that is the subject of the dispute between the judge and the Trump administration. The Trump administration contends that the judge’s verbal command to turn the planes around “did not amount to a binding injunction.” The 1798 Alien Enemies Act was passed during the administration of John Adams, the second president. The law stipulated that when the United States is at war or facing “any invasion or predatory incursion,” the president can remove males who are 14 years of age or older from the United States “as alien enemies.” Boasberg asked who had made the decision to not turn the planes back or not disembark the illegal immigrants, for which the government lawyer did not have an answer. “You, standing here, have no idea who made the decision to not to bring the planes back or have the passengers not be disembarked upon arrival? As we proceed with potential contempt proceedings, that may become relevant,” the judge said.  Members of Congress have taken issue with Boasberg’s actions, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has vowed to hold hearings on some of the judicial rulings against the Trump administration. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, and five other House Republicans have introduced articles of impeachment in the House against Boasberg.  “Chief Judge Boasberg usurped the executive’s constitutional authority, going so far as to order midair flights to turn around and return violent foreign gangsters back to American soil. Judge Boasberg’s politically motivated ruling overstepped his authority, compromised the impartiality of the judiciary, and created a constitutional crisis,” Gill said in a press statement. To remove a federal judge from office would require some Democrats’ support in the Senate, which House Republicans are unlikely to get. Boasberg is expected to rule on whether to hold Trump administration officials in contempt of court next week. The federal D.C. appeals court denied the Trump administration’s request to lift Boasberg’s order, and the administration has subsequently appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The post Trump Nemesis Judge Muses: Who to Hold in Contempt in Deportation Case? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump’s forceful use of export controls on high-end, dual-use semiconductors to contain the Chinese Communist Party’s  technological ambitions is one of the most important national security achievements of his first term. Export controls are a national security tool that restricts the technology that corporations can sell or transfer to American adversaries. In a long-overdue answer to China’s predatory industrial policies and unfair trade practices, the first Trump administration pioneered the use of these tools to counter China’s efforts to dominate critical technologies and further devastate U.S. industry. Less than 100 days into his second term, the president has already begun building on this legacy to continue protecting America’s national and economic security. Strong Export Controls Make Communist China Squirm Strong export controls on these advanced semiconductors make Communist China squirm—a clear sign that they are effective. China has resorted to desperate attempts to intimidate the United States from persisting in President Trump’s export control policy. In 2023, during then-Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo’s “good will tour to China,” Huawei released a smartphone featuring a homegrown Chinese microchip that seemingly subverted U.S. attempts to limit China’s chipmaking technology. This deliberately timed stunt was clearly intended to persuade the U.S. to abandon aggressive export controls. It didn’t work—semiconductor industry experts quickly deduced that China’s chipmaking abilities were still years behind the cutting edge, and that China’s ability to scale up production of high-end chips remained limited. The entire episode was a vindication of the Trump administration’s approach. China’s tech industry similarly attempted to intimidate President Trump as he took office for his second term. The Chinese AI company Deepseek released its R1 AI on Trump’s second inauguration day, just before he announced a landmark $500 billion investment in U.S. AI infrastructure. Deepseek published technical papers disclosing a small part of their development costs, leading to a false media narrative that Deepseek had figured out how to match or surpass cutting-edge U.S. AI giants with just a fraction of their capital and technological requirements. The narrative devastated U.S. tech stocks and sparked a $1 trillion loss in the U.S. stock market. The news cycle was perfectly designed to convey that the U.S. was falling behind in AI and couldn’t restrain China’s AI developments. Markets latched onto reports that Deepseek created its AI model for a meager $6 million. That’s a fraction of the billions spent by U.S. companies on similar projects, without using cutting-edge chips. The claims cast doubt on the effectiveness of U.S. export controls, the viability of leading U.S. AI firms, and the wisdom of Trump’s support for a multi-hundred-billion-dollar U.S.-led AI infrastructure buildout. But like the Huawei phone, the media narrative around Deepseek quickly unraveled. The Deepseek Narrative Unravels It turned out that Deepseek’s AI models relied on “large volumes of advanced AI chips with performance near the global state of the art” made by Nvidia. Also, Deepseek’s newest models may be trained on smuggled chips banned by U.S. export controls. Industry experts found that claims about Deepseek’s training costs conveniently omitted the largest expenses involved in AI development, including the price of high-end chips and power consumption. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei concluded that Deepseek’s “total spend… is not vastly different from U.S. AI labs,” and that the cost reductions Deepseek did demonstrate were “on-trend at best.” The Need for More Export Control and Enforcement If anything, Deepseek’s high-end AI models highlight the need for more aggressive export control development and enforcement for advanced semiconductors. AI expert Gregory C. Allen has laid out how Deepseek’s AI models were created using Nvidia chips designed solely to dodge exports controls, which were subsequently banned from export to China in 2023. Meanwhile, Chinese AI labs are increasingly turning to black markets for restricted chips and undertaking a national effort to indigenize supply chains necessary for AI development. Deepseek CEO Liang Wenfeng himself noted in July 2024 that “[m]oney has never been the problem for us; bans on shipments of advanced chips are the problem.” Further strengthening controls on high-end semiconductors and cracking down on smuggling operations can ensure that the U.S. advantage in AI persists. The CEO of ASML, a firm that makes critical semiconductor manufacturing equipment, has stated that U.S. export controls have left China approximately 10-15 years behind the West in producing the high-end chips necessary to escape the grasp of U.S. export controls. Trump Is Protecting America’s Edge Fortunately, Trump is picking up where he left off and continuing his legacy of protecting America’s technological edge. Early in Trump’s first term, over 300 Chinese companies were added to the Bureau of Industry and Security’s Entity List. This subjected them to export controls and licensing requirements. The policy was so clearly in the national interest that the Biden administration continued it, restricting China’s access to the entire semiconductor sector in 2022 and 2023. This included key restrictions in December 2024 on high bandwidth memory, which is vital for AI applications. Trump looks set for an even more aggressive approach in his second term. His day-one America First trade policy requires Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to “enhance our Nation’s technological edge” by eliminating “loopholes in existing export controls.” The president’s more recent America First Investment Policy explicitly indicates that the U.S. will crack down further on China’s attempts to indigenize semiconductor manufacturing. Trump has also chosen personnel eager to implement this agenda. Lutnick has committed to rigorously enforcing tech restrictions. Before he was even confirmed, the Commerce Department adopted a more skeptical posture towards sales of restricted technology to China, a welcome change. Most recently, on March 31, Lutnick and newly-confirmed Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Jeffrey Kessler sanctioned a slew of companies for “engaging in the development of advanced AI, supercomputers, and high-performance AI chips for China-based end-users with close ties to the country’s military-industrial complex.” “We are committed to using every tool at the Department’s disposal to ensure our most advanced technologies stay out of the hands of those who seek to harm Americans,” Lutnick explained at the time. And this is only the beginning—the president has now awaiting Senate confirmation who are firmly committed to further bolstering export controls on high end semiconductors. Xi Jinping and the CCP should be concerned. These are exactly the moves a leader would make if they intend to prevent China from dominating critical technologies. Trump’s approach to semiconductor export controls is the right one. These policies have protected America’s national security and technological edge and are even more critical today than during his first term. Thankfully, the president is planning to take them even further. The post President Trump Is Protecting America’s Technological Edge Over China appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Wednesday, Georgia’s State Capitol was the stage for a “heated debate” over legislation aimed at sparing taxpayers from funding gender transition procedures for inmates—including “sex change surgeries, hormone replacement therapies, and cosmetic procedures designed to alter sexual characteristics.” While the measure garnered strong support from Republicans, Democrats voiced their displeasure with the bill and the financial protections it offers. Senate Bill 185 passed Georgia’s House by a 100-2 margin, with the only dissenting votes coming from Democrat lawmakers Regina Lewis-Ward and David Sampson. The rest of the party’s representatives chose a different tactic, staging a dramatic walkout from the chamber in protest. And yet, their exodus did little to disrupt the bill’s momentum. It awaits only the signature of Republican Gov. Brian Kemp to become law. Prior to the walkout, state Rep. Tanya Miller, a Democrat, expressed her opposition to the legislation. “Our constituents sent us here to address serious pressing issues affecting their daily lives,” she said. “Yet, instead of addressing real problems, my colleagues in the majority party continue their extreme agenda.” But according to Georgia Republicans, it is worth addressing. Immediately after the Democrats’ walkout, Republicans criticized their protest. According to the Daily Caller, “Republican Rep. Trey Kelley denounced their exit and said that leaving the chamber instead of advocating for fiscal responsibility was disgraceful.” Additionally, “Republican House Majority Whip James Burchett said that elections have outcomes and added that Georgia taxpayers deem this issue significant and oppose funding elective surgeries.” In fact, this focus on taxpayer priorities reflects a broader Republican agenda in Georgia, exemplified by another recent legislative push. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed the General Assembly earlier this year. While SB 185 prioritizes fiscal balance, RFRA focuses on constitutional balance—specifically when it comes to religious freedom, as it was modeled after a federal law to protect that right. Just a week before RFRA’s passage, Family Research Council Action Operations Coordinator Jacob Kersey wrote of why Georgia’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act “is necessary to protect people of faith.” Kersey, a Georgia native, has experienced government overreach firsthand when he was effectively fired from his former employment as a police officer in Port Wentworth. The reason? His posting of a Bible verse on his personal social media that some of his team found offensive. “My supervisors ordered me to remove my post,” Kersey wrote, “saying it was the ‘same thing as saying the N-word.’ I disagreed and declined to do so, expressing my concerns that my religious freedom was being infringed.” After being “given an ultimatum, resign now or be fired the next time someone finds my Christian beliefs offensive, I made the difficult decision to resign.” He wasn’t alone. “I’m not the only Georgia public servant who faced similar fallout due to religious speech,” Kersey noted, citing cases like that of Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, fired in 2015 for faith-based writings. “At the end of the day,” he added, “the passage of the Georgia RFRA isn’t about Chief Cochran or me; it’s about the right of all Georgians to enjoy their God-given First Amendment right to religious expression.” And in a comment to The Washington Stand, Kersey further explained the parallels between RFRA and SB 185 in terms of the roles they play in the lives of Georgians. “What we have seen this legislative session in Georgia is Democrats refusing to abandon transgender ideology, one of the main reasons they lost in 2024,” he told TWS. “Protecting Georgian taxpayers from being forced to pay for ‘gender transition’ procedures for inmates is commonsense and good policy.” And when it comes to the Democrats walking out of the chamber on Wednesday, Kersey noted that was just one of many examples of Democrats opposing good policy. “Georgia Democrats voted against keeping men out of women’s sports, against increasing protections for all Georgians of faith, and against protecting taxpayers from being forced to pay for ‘gender transition’ procedures for inmates,” he stated. “The fact that Georgia Democrats staged a walkout instead of voting on SB 185 is because they know they are between a rock and a hard place: Their base that supports pro-transgender policies, and the overwhelming number of voters in Georgia who do not.” According to Kersey, the reality is that “they are afraid to go on the record for SB 185, but they are scared to oppose their base. In other words, they can’t have it both ways—it’s a lose-lose.” Kersey explained that he had helped organize grassroots support by making calls to mobilize “our grassroots lists [in Georgia] to contact their representatives and urge them to support Georgia’s RFRA (SB36)”—and they did just that. “We are grateful to God and the Georgia Legislature that this important bill was passed. I’m personally grateful to see the successful passage of GA’s [Georgia’s] RFRA and to be a part of the FRC Action team which remains committed to standing for religious freedom in public policy and culture in Washington, D.C. and across the nation.” And now, as SB 185 supporters across Georgia hold their breath, only Kemp’s pen stands between them and the protection of their hard-earned tax dollars. Originally published by The Washington Stand The post Georgia’s GOP Scores Victories on Religious Freedom and Defunding Trans Procedures appeared first on The Daily Signal.

March saw an increase of 228,000 jobs, even as government employment declined, according to the new monthly report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Friday report puts wind in the sails of the Trump administration, as it attempts to sell the American public on its bold restructuring of the U.S. economy. “GREAT JOB NUMBERS, FAR BETTER THAN EXPECTED. IT’S ALREADY WORKING. HANG TOUGH, WE CAN’T LOSE!!!” said President Donald Trump on Truth Social on Friday in all capital letters for emphasis. Although the unemployment rate (4.2%) and the total number of unemployed people (7.1 million) remained mostly unchanged, the gain of 228,000 nonfarm payroll jobs is a big spike compared with previous months. The report mentions that this gain is “higher than the average monthly gain of 158,000 over the prior 12 months.” More specifically, job gains were seen in “health care, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing,” as well as in retail.  White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt asserted on X that these numbers were the result of Trump’s tariffs and his tough-on-trade stance from even before his Wednesday “liberation day” tariff rollout. GREAT NEWS! The economy is starting to roar with a strong 228,000 jobs added in the month of March — well ahead of the market's expectation. There was also a sharp increase in transportation, construction, and warehousing employment. The President's push to onshore jobs here in…— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) April 4, 2025 “The president’s push to onshore jobs here in the United States is working. The Golden Age of America is on its way!” said Leavitt. In keeping with February, federal government jobs continued to decline, although at a slower pace. Some 4,000 government jobs were lost in March, a drop from the 11,000 jobs lost in February. The continued losses of government jobs is likely the result of the concerted push to downsize government and reinstate standards, such as requiring in-office work. .@SecretaryLCD: @POTUS is keeping his promises to the American worker. He is the President of the American worker… we're going to start to grow this economy as we build the workforce here in America, and we're going to see these numbers continue to rise. pic.twitter.com/km5ebNGUmi— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 4, 2025 Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer celebrated the numbers Friday morning, saying that the job figures blew financial pundits’ pessimistic predictions “out of the water.” The post Report: Private Sector Jobs Boomed in March as Government Employment Shrank appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A Democrat member of the Colorado House of Representatives justified excluding parental rights groups from discussions about a bill that would remove kids from parents’ custody for behaviors like “misgendering” and “deadnaming.” She did so by comparing parental rights groups to the Ku Klux Klan in a hearing on Tuesday. While witnesses in a hearing on House Bill 1312 said they had been working on the legislation for over a year, Jarvis Caldwell, a Republican member of the state House of Representatives, said that he only heard about it Monday. “I really am curious about how much stakeholdering went on both sides of the issue and if parent groups that are not part of the LGBT community, if they were involved,” he said. State Rep. Yara Zokaie, a Democrat, loudly condemned the idea of strategizing with parental rights groups on the bill. “A well-stakeholded bill does not need to be discussed with hate groups, and we don’t ask someone passing civil rights legislation to go ask the KKK their opinion,” she quipped. Another Democrat, state Rep. Javier Mabrey, said, “There’s no reason to go to the table with people who are echoing the hateful rhetoric going around about the trans community.” ? SHAMEFUL ?Last night during closing statements on HB25-1312, Transgender Protections, two House Judiciary members referred to traditional parental rights groups as “hate groups” & compared them to the KKK. #coleg #copolitics pic.twitter.com/G0aP9zpJF2— Rep. Jarvis Caldwell (@RepCaldwell) April 3, 2025 What Does the Bill Do? According to the bill summary, HB 1312 defines “coercive control” as including “deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual’s gender-affirming health care services.” “A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child,” the summary adds. These provisions would effectively require parents to endorse gender ideology in order to maintain custody of their own children in a dispute. Gender ideology teaches that a person’s internal sense of gender overrides his or her biological sex. “Deadnaming” involves referring to an individual who claims to be transgender by the name that person has rejected. “Misgendering” involves referring to a person who claims to be transgender with the pronouns associated with their biological sex, rather than their preferred pronouns. “Gender-affirming health care” is a euphemism for experimental medical interventions designed to make a man appear female or vice versa. Supporters frame the bill as an attempt to prevent anti-transgender discrimination. “This bill is about ensuring that what we say exists with anti-discrimination is a reality for those who truly live life every day in fear of being discriminating against, retaliated against, harmed, harassed,” state Rep. Lorena Garcia, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, told The Denver Post. Critics warn that a bill like this could make stories like that of California father Jeff Younger more likely in Colorado. Younger is battling in court to prevent his ex-wife from putting his son on experimental treatments to make him appear female. “It prejudices the court by saying any non-affirmation of gender, anything short of actual celebration of the genital mutilation and the hormone therapy, the conversion, is discriminatory and is coercive control,” Rep. Ken DeGraaf, a Republican state house member, told The Daily Signal in an interview Friday. “It just prejudices the court in this civil arena.” “This bill puts one parent waste-deep in a hole for the other one to start throwing stones at them,” he added. Caldwell, the Republican who asked about stakeholders, told The Daily Signal that the bill creates a “legal imbalance that could lead to serious consequences for parents who do not affirm their child’s gender dysphoria.” “I believe the ultimate intention of this bill is to make it impossible for a parent to get their child help when the child is gender confused by declaring such help as child abuse,” he added. Heritage Action, a grassroots lobbying group, opposes the bill. “This legislation seeks to impose radical gender ideology on Colorado families by penalizing parents for ‘misgendering’ or ‘deadnaming’ their children in custody disputes, effectively weaponing the state against parents who prioritize biological reality and constitutional rights over compelled speech,” Kristen Christensen, Heritage Action’s Colorado state director, told The Daily Signal. “It erodes local control by mandating schools abandon gender-based dress codes and forcing businesses to comply with subjective identity demands under the threat of fines.” “This bill is an open assault on parent’s rights and free speech,” Christensen added. Republican Criticism Rep. Zokaie did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment about her remarks, and neither did the bill’s Democrat sponsors in the Colorado House or Colorado Senate, but two House Republicans condemned them. “While I cannot speak for Rep. Zokaie, I can say that parental rights groups that are fighting for their children are not organizations that should be equated with hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan; this is completely inappropriate,” Caldwell told The Daily Signal in a statement Thursday. “These groups are focused on advocating for parental involvement and ensuring parents have the authority in their children’s upbringing, especially in educational matters.” Caldwell further said the comparison uses “inflammatory labels that are only meant to create division” and “dismisses the valid concerns of parents.” “Calling parental advocacy groups ‘hate groups’ is just their excuse to marginalize and ignore them while maintaining a pretense of moral superiority,” DeGraaf told The Daily Signal. Where Does This Come From? Parental rights groups have faced this kind of vitriol before. The Southern Poverty Law Center brands parental rights groups “anti-government extremist groups” and puts them on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. The SPLC has long branded as “anti-LGBTQ hate groups” conservative and Christian organizations that oppose its activism on social issues. Last year, the SPLC branded an openly LGB organization, Gays Against Groomers, an “anti-LGBTQ hate group,” in part because it opposes sexually explicit materials in school. Numerous scandals have roiled the SPLC. The SPLC has apologized to celebrated neurosurgeon and former secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson for branding him an “extremist” over his views on marriage. The group paid more than $3 million to settle a defamation lawsuit from a Muslim reformer it had branded an “anti-Islamic extremist.” A racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal led the group to fire its co-founder, Morris Dees, in 2019. After that scandal, employees unionized, and now the SPLC faces accusations of “union-busting” for laying off union members. Amid that 2019 scandal, a former employee called the “hate” accusations a “highly profitable scam.” Critics say the SPLC uses the “hate map” to exaggerate hate—terrifying donors into ponying up cash—and to demonize its political and ideological opponents. DeGraaf, one of the Colorado Republicans, told The Daily Signal that his Democratic colleagues had cited the SPLC in previous legislative debates, despite its scandals. He mocked Democrats’ citing of the SPLC. “It says poverty, it’s southern. These people are for the oppressed,” he said, adopting the mentality of his opponents. “How dare you deign to question somebody with such a righteous name as the Southern Poverty Law Center?” The post Colorado Democrat Compares Parents Rights Groups to the KKK While Backing a Bill to Remove Custody Over ‘Misgendering’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.