On February 2, 2026, the White House published the article Americans Overwhelmingly Support Deporting Criminal Illegals, Local Cooperation with ICE announcing 2 new polls showing the majority of American Citizens want illegal aliens deported. There is broad agreement with the Trump Administration's agenda in that 73% agree that entering the US without permission is breaking our law; 61% support deporting illegal aliens to their home countries; 58% reject calls to defund ICE; and 54% support ICE's enforcement of US Immigration Laws.
A second poll improves the above numbers slightly in that 73% say criminal illegal aliens need to be deported and over 50% go further to state all illegal aliens have no lawful right to be in our country. Another 67% want their state and local officials to cooperate with ICE and say that jails should hand over illegals to ICE. Another 60% find that Democrats are actively encouraging defiance of ICE. Finally, 57% oppose the urging of defiance against ICE by elected officials. When this poll is broken out by political leaning 50% of Dems, 89% of GOP, and 62% of Ind/Other want illegal aliens handed over to ICE by local law enforcement.
Currently, Democrats have partially shut down our Federal government again, this time over their desire to defund ICE. They are also protesting the inclusion of HR22 / S128- the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) introduced by Chip Roy (R-TX-21) on January 3, 2025 (during the autopen administration). This Act has 110 Cosponsors (all GOP members). In summary, the SAVE Act bill:
requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.
prohibits states from accepting and processing an application to register to vote in a federal election unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. The bill specifies what documents are considered acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship, such as identification that complies with the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates U.S. citizenship.
(1) prohibits states from registering an individual to vote in a federal election unless, at the time the individual applies to register to vote, the individual provides documentary proof of U.S. citizenship; and (2) requires states to establish an alternative process under which an applicant may submit other evidence to demonstrate U.S. citizenship.
Each state must take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote, which shall include establishing a program to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens using information supplied by certain sources.
states must remove noncitizens from their official lists of eligible voters.
allows for a private right of action against an election official who registers an applicant to vote in a federal election who fails to present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.
establishes criminal penalties for certain offenses, including registering an applicant to vote in a federal election who fails to present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.
On February 2, 2026, the White House published the article Ninth Meeting of the North American Drug Dialogue (NADD) held January 27 & 28, 2026 with Canada, Mexico, and the US to discuss strategies to mitigate the National Security Threat of manufacturing, trade, and misuse of fentanyl and other illicit drugs. The 3 countries agreed to 3 strategic priorities:
securing the global supply chain and related institutions against drug trafficking;
strengthening effective drug policy implementation and law enforcement; and
reducing overdose deaths, mitigating harm and increasing long-term recovery.
Advancing these priorities through:
enhancing border and postal security;
stopping firearms trafficking networks that support the drug trade;
closing financial systems to criminal networks; and
deploying wastewater testing and early drug warning capabilities
NADD was established in July 2016 to foster transparency and sharing implementation strategies, best practices, and data with a goal of understanding challenges to North America posted by the illicit drug trade & substance use as well as to promote coordinated, enduring solutions.
On February 3, 2026, the FR published Proclamation 11007 Year of Celebration and Rededication, 2026 signed January 29, 2026 (discussed in my January 29, 2026 ANP Article).
On February 3, 2026, the FR published Addressing Addiction Through the Great American Recovery Initiative signed January 29, 2026 (discussed in my January 30, 2026 ANP Article).
On February 3, 2026, the FR published EO 14380 Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Cuba signed January 29, 2026 (discussed in my January 30, 2026 ANP Article).
An order and declaration that the Department’s Notices of Non-Continuation to the Affected Programs are in excess of statutory authority and jurisdiction and contrary to law;
An order and declaration that the Department’s Notices of Non-Continuation to the Affected Programs are arbitrary and capricious;
An order and declaration that the Department’s Notices of Non-Continuation to the Affected Programs are not in observance of procedure required by law;
An order and declaration that the Department’s interpretation and application of 34 C.F.R. § 75.253(a)(5) with respect to the Notices of Non-Continuation to the Affected Programs is void for vagueness;
An order and declaration that the Department’s interpretation and application of 34 C.F.R. § 75.253(a)(5) with respect to the Notices of Non-Continuation to the Affected Programs violated the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Delegation Doctrine, and the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution;
An order and declaration that the Department’s Notices of Non-Continuation to the Affected Members constituted ultra vires actions in excess of statutory authority;
In the alternative, a writ of mandamus ordering and declaring that the Department’s Notices of Non-Continuation to the Affected Members were in violation of the HEA, Title VI and Title IX, and the applicable Department regulations;
A preliminary injunction vacating and setting aside the Notices of NonContinuation to the Affected Programs and directing the Department to immediately reconsider its action on the Affected Programs’ respective TRIO grants, in accordance with the HEA, Title VI and Title IX, and the applicable Department regulations;
A preliminary injunction directing the Department to take the necessary steps, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, to award prior experience points to the Affected Programs for future TRIO grant competition cycles, including but not limited to competition cycles in 2026;
A preliminary injunction directing the Department to take the necessary steps, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, to set the minimum award amount for the Affected Members no lower than the Affected Members’ awards for their respective TRIO grants in fiscal year 2024, for future TRIO grant competition cycles, including but not limited to competitions cycles in 2026;
A preliminary injunction prohibiting the Department in the future from denying or termination federal financial assistance to Plaintiff’s Affected Programs without satisfying the requirements under Title VI and Title IX;
A preliminary injunction extending the period of availability for fiscal year 2025 funds, beyond September 30, 2025, for any remaining unobligated fiscal year 2025 funds of the $3,080,952,000 that Congress appropriated to the Department’s Higher Education budget account, without prior notice and approval from the Court, and further, prohibiting the Department from obligating or spending any such remaining unobligated funds without notice and Court approval, and further, directing that the funds will not be considered lapsed as of October 1, 2025, and further, directing the Department to provide an accounting of all such funds, that have been obligated and unobligated, spent or unspent, and the purposes for which the funds have been obligated and spent;
An order awarding COE its attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
Any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Notices of Non-Continuation sent to Plaintiff and the members it identified in Case No. 25-cv-03514 are VACATED.
Defendants, and others in active concert or participation therewith, are ENJOINED from implementing or enforcing through any means the Notices of Non-Continuation sent to Plaintiff and its identified members.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must take all necessary actions and steps to reconsider the Notices of Non-Continuation as to Plaintiff and its identified members and
issue new determinations regarding continuation, in accordance with the court’s accompanying Memorandum Opinion as well as all applicable laws, regulations, and procedures
Defendants are ENJOINED from reissuing Notices of Non-Continuation to Plaintiff or any of its identified members without satisfying the requisite procedures, including, where
applicable, the requirements under Title VI, Title IX, and any other applicable federal laws and
regulations.
B. Case No. 25-cv-03491
ORDERED that Defendants’ Notices of Non-Selection sent to Plaintiff’s identified members in Case No. 25-cv-03491 are VACATED.
Defendants, and others in active concert or participation therewith, are ENJOINED from implementing or enforcing through any means the Notices of Non-Selection sent to Plaintiff’s identified members.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must take all necessary actions and steps to reconsider the identified members’ previously denied FY 2025 SSS grant applications and issue new funding determinations, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion as well as all applicable laws, regulations, and procedures.
Defendants are ENJOINED from issuing new Notices of Non-Selection to Plaintiff’s identified members without satisfying the requisite procedures, including, where applicable, the requirements under Title VI and any other applicable federal laws and regulations.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ request for a stay of any preliminary injunction order in Case No. 25-cv-03491, ECF No. 15 at 36, is DENIED without prejudice.
Consolidated Cases
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived, and that this preliminary injunction is effective upon service; it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall file a status report with the court, within 14 days of entry of this Order, advising the court of the steps it has taken to comply with the preliminary injunction; it is further
ORDERED that, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to expand the scope of this preliminary injunction to include additional unnamed members who have been harmed by Defendants’
actions at issue in this litigation, Plaintiff may file a motion to modify the scope of the court’s preliminary injunction with attached documentation of such harms by February 1, 2026; it is further
ORDERED that this preliminary injunction remains in effect pending further orders from this Court.
I expect the defendants to appeal this ruling. They are trying to keep the Department of Education intact whereas the Trump Administration is attempting to dismantle it. Just because you work for the Federal government does not mean you cannot be fired, laid off, or riffed. Our Federal government is too bloated and there is too much fraud going on in many of these agencies. Reduce the size of the Federal government. Use technology to streamline applications and permits. Automate much of what the majority of the employees are doing.
Declare that the Closure Order and the Closure Decisions are unlawful and/or unconstitutional because they violate the APA and/or the United States Constitution;
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705, postpone the effective date of the Closure Decisions;
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706, vacate the Closure Decisions;
Preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Agency Defendants from implementing the Closure Order and the Closure Decisions;
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
Grant other such relief as this Court may deem proper.
The Defendants Institute of Museum and Library Services ("IMLS"), Keith E Sonderling, Minority Business and Development Agency ("MBDAA"), Madiha D Latif, Howard Lutnick, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service ("FMCS"); Gregory Goldstein, Office of Management and Budget, Russell T Vought (collectively "Agency Defendants") are enjoined from implementing Section 2 of Executive Order 14238, "Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy" as to IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS.
Orders Agency Defendants to reverse policies, memoranda, directives, or actions issued with respect to IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS.
No further actions are to be taken to eliminate IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS; however Agency Defendants can still improve Agency efficiency by reducing size or scope as long as the Agency Defendant provides a reasoned explanation.
Agency Defendants will restore all IMLS, MBDA, and FMCS employees and contractors involuntarily placed on leave or terminated; however, Agency Defendants can still place on leave or terminate employees for reasons other than EO 14238.
Agency Defendants shall not pause, cancel, or otherwise terminate IMLS or MBDA grants or contracts or fail to disburse funds.
Agency Defendants shall take immediate steps to resume the processing, disbursement, and payment of already-awarded funding and release funds withheld or rendered inaccessible based on EO 14238.
Agency Defendants shall file a status report within 7 days confirming full compliance with this order.
EO 14238 Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy was signed March 14, 2025. Its purpose is to reduce elements of the Federal bureaucracy the President has determined are unnecessary. Section 2 specifically cites the following entities to be eliminated (consistent with applicable law):
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS)
United States Agency for Global Media
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in the Smithsonian Institution
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, and
Judgment hereby enters for the Plaintiffs State of Rhode Island, et al. and against Defendants Donald J. Trump, et al. pursuant to the Memorandum and Order entered on November 21st, 2025 by this Court.
In the lawsuit Rhode Island v. Trump docket # 26-1070 Appeal of 1:25-cv-00128 filed in Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 21, 2026 about the Federal Funding Freeze, the government appealed Judge McConnell's November 21, 2025 order granting summary judgement. On January 21, 2026, the appeal was filed.
Just because you work for the Federal government does not mean you have a permanent job. Offices, bureaus, agencies, departments, etc., are all subject to closure or dismantling. Employees of the Federal government do not have a right to a job.
Enter a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs possess the same rights as career Foreign Service Officers also hired through appointment and not contract;
Find Plaintiffs’ termination from USAID unlawful as it violated
the First Amendment
the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,
the Administrative Leave Act;
the Foreign Service Act and therefore the Administrative Procedure Act; and
amounted to bad faith reduction-in-force, and
an ultra vires action;
Enjoin Defendants from enforcing Plaintiffs’ unlawful terminations;
Enjoin Defendants from taking action to enforce guidance, including specifically by Defendant OPM, seeking to evaluate the partisan affiliation of future applicants for Plaintiffs’ positions;
Order Defendants USAID and/or the State Department to individually evaluate Plaintiffs’ performance during their tenure, and for the Chief Human Capital Officer (or equivalent) of either Defendant to declare under oath and seal the individualized reason and documentation underpinning that termination, and why Plaintiffs cannot continue their work;
Enjoin Defendants USAID and/or the State Department from rehiring for positions similar or identical to positions for which Plaintiffs are qualified, without notifying the Court, and
giving Plaintiffs the chance to be restored to a similar position;
Order Defendants USAID and/or the State Department to update Plaintiffs’ personnel files, including their SF-50s, to reflect that their terminations were not performance- or conduct-based and to correct Plaintiffs’ retirement status as reflected in their SF-50s;
Provide leave to add additional Plaintiffs by motion, or any method approved by the Court; and
Award Plaintiffs backpay and benefits owed under their employment agreements, compensatory and consequential damages from unlawful termination, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just in amounts to be proven at trial.
JURY DEMAND - Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
There is no Amendment that states you have the right to a government job. There is no Amendment that states you cannot be fired from a government job. There is no Amendment that says the government cannot close, discontinue, or shut down any office, department, bureau, directorate, etc.
Declare that the ideological-deportation policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments and the APA, and set the policy aside.
Enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing the ideological-deportation policy—including, without limitation, through investigation, surveillance, arrest, detention, deportation, or any other adverse action.
Declare that Defendants’ threats to arrest, detain, and deport noncitizen students and faculty based on their political viewpoints violates the First Amendment, and
enjoin Defendants from continuing to make those threats.
To the extent Defendants rely on the security and related grounds of inadmissibility, including the endorse and espouse and foreign policy provisions, as the basis for carrying out the policy, declare that those provisions violate the First and Fifth
Amendments as applied, and enjoin Defendants from applying those provisions.
Award Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Judgment sha l l enter in favor of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants on Counts I and IV of the Complaint
declares that the Public Officials' enforcement policy and the implementation thereof as set forth in the findings is OF NO EFFECT, VOID, ILLEGAL, SET ASIDE, AND VACATED .
the Court, pursuant to its broad equitable powers of remediation , imposes the following remedial sanction to protect certain of the Plaintiffs' non-citizen members from any retribution for the free exercise of their constitutional rights.
Upon the moment of commencement of any Sanction Action by the filing a complaint, the Sanction Plaintiff's removal from the United States is automatically STAYED during the pendency of the Sanction Action.
Non-US-Citizen rights are granted to them through Immigration Law - not the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Part of becoming a US Citizen is following all of our laws (starting with entering our country legally). If they can't follow the first rule of Immigration - enter legally - then how can you expect them to follow any of our other laws?
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the partial stay of the district court’s October, 9, 2025, order to the extent it enjoined the federalization of the National Guard within Illinois is VACATED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the pending motion for summary affirmance is DENIED as MOOT.
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly asked the court to dismiss the appeal.
Declare the Defendants’ actions to categorically “suspend” or revoke all State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan approvals and to categorically withhold or withdraw NEVI Formula Program funds violate the APA.
Declare the Defendants’ actions to categorically “suspend” or revoke all State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan approvals and to categorically withhold or withdraw NEVI Formula Program funds violate the separation of powers doctrine and the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Declare the Defendants’ actions to categorically “suspend” or revoke all State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan approvals and to categorically withhold or withdraw NEVI Formula Program funds are contrary to the law, outside the Defendants’ authority, and therefore unlawful under the common law ultra vires doctrine.
Vacate the Defendants’ actions to categorically “suspend” or revoke Plaintiff States’ Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan approvals and to categorically withhold or withdraw NEVI Formula Program funds.
Preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants from “suspending” or revoking Plaintiff States’ Electric Vehicle Deployment Plan approvals.
Preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants from withholding or withdrawing NEVI Formula Program funds for any reason not set forth in the IIJA or applicable FHWA regulations, and without following the IIJA’s
procedural requirements, including by refusing to review and process Plaintiff States’ requests for authorization to obligate funds for specific EV charging infrastructure development activities in the normal course.
Preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants from implementing any requirement, policy, or guidance that contravenes congressional intent and directive in making authorization request decisions and obligating funds for specific activities.
Preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Defendants from implementing or effectuating through any action the directive in the Executive Order to withhold or withdraw NEVI Formula Program funds in contravention of the express congressional mandates in the IIJA.
Retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the orders of this Court.
Award the Plaintiff States their reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Grant other such relief as this Court may deem proper.
Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff States and against Defendants on Counts I, II, and III of Plaintiff States’ First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 124).
Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff–Intervenors and against Defendants on Counts 1 and 2 of Plaintiff–Intervenors’ Complaint-in-Intervention (Dkt. No. 76-1).
Defendants’ actions, as announced in the February 6, 2025, letter from the Federal Highway Administration to State Department of Transportation Directors, to “suspend the approval of all State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment plans for all fiscal years” and prohibit “new obligations . . . under the NEVI Formula Program until the updated final NEVI Formula Program Guidance is issued and new State plans are submitted and approved,” are VACATED and SET ASIDE in their entirety.
Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and any person in active concert or participation with them who receives actual notice of this order are hereby fully ENJOINED from the following:
Suspending or revoking—or maintaining any current suspension or revocation of—previously-approved State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans of Plaintiff States Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as previously-approved State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans of any NEVI jurisdiction which has not yet fully obligated its funds for Fiscal Years 2022–2025. These States’ State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans SHALL be restored to the legal status they held prior to the February 6, 2025, issuance of the Biondi Letter; and
Withholding or withdrawing NEVI Formula Program funds for any previously approved State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plans for any reason not set forth in the IIJA or applicable FHWA regulations; or withholding or withdrawing NEVI Formula Program funds from a state without following the IIJA’s substantive and procedural requirements, including by refusing to review and/or process requests for authorization to obligate funds for specific EV charging infrastructure development activities.
The Court DECLARES that Defendants’ actions, as announced in the February 6, 2025, letter from the Federal Highway Administration to State Department of Transportation Directors, to “suspend[] the approval of all State Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment plans for all fiscal years” and prohibit “new obligations . . . under the NEVI Formula Program until the updated final NEVI Formula Program Guidance is issued and new State plans are submitted and approved”:
Violate the Administrative Procedure Act because they are in excess of statutory authority;
Violate the Administrative Procedure Act because they are arbitrary and capricious; and
Violate the Administrative Procedure Act because they are not in accordance with law and without observance of procedure required by law.
Within five (5) days of this Judgment, Defendants’ attorneys SHALL provide written notice of this Judgment to all Defendants and agencies and their employees or contractors with responsibility for administering the NEVI Formula Program. Defendants SHALL file a copy of the notice on the docket at the same time.
The Court retains jurisdiction to resolve any issues related to the enforcement of this Judgment.
Expect an appeal to this judge's usurping of Presidential duties.
Pecuniary, compensatory, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and
Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Families of people who lost their lives during the commission of a crime should not be allowed to file suits such as these. If the person were not involved in criminal activity, they would not have lost their life.
After the War of 1812, Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836 and voted to join the US in 1856. In April 1846, Mexican forces ambushed US troops along the Rio Grande killing 11 and wounding 6. President James K Polk took action. By May 1846, we were at war with Mexico. Generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott led the US forces to victory, capturing Mexico City in September 1847.
In the US this war was known as the Mexican War but if you were in Mexico it was called the US Intervention in Mexico. The war began April 25, 1846 and ended with the signed treaty on February 2, 1848. The ending of this war inspired patriotism in the US but was criticized for the massive cost. The US forces were 73,532 troops and Mexican forces were 82,000 troops. By the end of the war, the US lost 1,733 troops with 4,152 wounded and an additional 11,550 dead from disease, and 695 troops missing/unaccounted for at the end of the war. On the other hand, the Mexican forces lost 5,000 troops with 20,000 wounded, and 10,000 missing.
On February 2, 1847, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico. Mexico ceded 525,000 square miles of territory to the US including present day California, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona as well as parts of Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. However, the US paid Mexico $15M for this territory. It was not taken as spoils of war. The treaty established the Rio Grande as the southern boundary of Texas. The US ratified the treaty on March 10, 1847 and Mexico ratified on May 19, 1847. The treaty became effective on July 4, 1848. President Trump writes:
On this anniversary of one of our Nation’s earliest displays of military might—and particularly as we celebrate 250 glorious years of American independence—we honor the memory of the brave men who gave their lives in service to our Nation. One hundred and seventy-eight years later, their legacy lives on in our enduring strength, our commitment to sovereignty, and the unmatched power of the American spirit.
Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
