Possibly, but his fifth & last tenet is “if after all this you still lose, claim you won and move on”.
1 Like
Not 100% - I think they did demur at one of his more bizarre executive orders though I can’t recall the details.
But he has a track record of ignoring court orders so there’s that.
Those pesky court orders may become a thing of the past. The implications of the article below are scary, yet I’ve not seen any other coverage of what’s buried in Trump’s bill
Well, the Guardian has just lost me as a supporter.
You now get a page with the option to allow the Guardian to sell your data or pay for “ad limited” browsing.
Except that doesn’t work - it just shows the same choice over and over
The only way out is the “accept” button.
No thanks. I might have gone for a digital subscription - it’s only twelve quid a month which is about the level of adhoc occasional one off payments I’ve been making but I dislike being strong-armed.
PS Brave accesses the content just fine.
2 Likes
Have just discovered that the Grauniad article below has a ‘share’ option, but not via a web link
The bill could stop federal courts from enforcing their rulings, eliminating any restraint on Trump
Tue 27 May 2025 12.00 CEST
Share
If enacted, Donald Trump’s Big Ugly Bill as it emerged on Thursday from the House of Representatives would result in the largest redistribution of income and wealth in American history – from the poor and working class to the rich.
Hidden within the bill is also a provision that would allow Trump to crown himself king.
For months now, Trump has been trying to act like a king by ignoring court rulings against him.
Former Harvard president urges people to ‘speak out’ against threats to US democracy
Read more
The supreme court has told Trump to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, a legal resident of the United States who even the Trump regime admits was erroneously sent to a brutal prison in El Salvador.
Trump has done nothing.
Lower federal courts have ordered him to stop deporting migrants without giving them a chance to know the charges against them and have the charges and evidence reviewed by a neutral judge or magistrate – the minimum of due process.
Again, nothing.
Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the federal district court for the District of Columbia, issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump regime from flying individuals to the prison in El Salvador without due process.
Judge Boasberg has found that the Trump regime has willfully disregarded his order.
Is there anything that the courts can do in response to Trump’s open defiance of judges and justices?
They have only one power to make their orders stick. They can hold federal officials in contempt, and enforce such contempt citations by fining or jailing them.
It’s a radical remedy, rarely used. But several federal judges are at their wits’ end.
Boasberg said that if Trump’s legal team does not give the dozens of Venezuelan men sent to the Salvadorian prison a chance to legally challenge their removal, he’ll begin contempt proceedings against the administration.
In a separate case, the US district court judge Paula Xinis has demanded that the Trump administration explain why it is not complying with the supreme court order to “facilitate” the release of Ábrego García.
Xinis has even questioned whether the administration intends to comply with the order at all, citing a statement from the homeland security chief, Kristi Noem, that Ábrego García “will never be allowed to return to the United States”.
According to Xinis, “That sounds to me like an admission. That’s about as clear as it can get.”
So what’s the next step? Will the supreme court and lower courts hold the administration in contempt and enforce the contempt citations?
Trump and his Republican stooges in Congress apparently anticipated this. Hidden inside their Big Ugly Bill is a provision intended to block the courts from using contempt to enforce its orders. It reads:
skip past newsletter promotion
Sign up to Follow Robert Reich
Free newsletter
Get Robert Reich’s latest columns delivered straight to your inbox
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued …”
Translated: no federal court may enforce a contempt citation.
The measure would make most existing injunctions – in antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases and others – unenforceable.
Its only purpose is to weaken the power of the federal courts.
As Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley School of Law dean and distinguished professor of law, notes, this provision would eliminate any restraint on Trump.
“Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored. There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law …
“This would be a stunning restriction on the power of the federal courts. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts. Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard.”
In other words, with this single measure, Trump will have crowned himself king.
If it is enacted, no Congress and no court could stop him. Even if a future Congress were to try, it could not do so without the power of the courts to enforce their hearings, investigations, subpoenas and laws.
The gross unfairness of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill is bad enough. It would worsen the nation’s already near-record inequalities of income and wealth.
But the provision inside the bill that neuters the federal courts is even worse. It would remove the last remaining constraint on Trump, and thereby effectively end American democracy.
1 Like
Thanks - as I said Brave seemed to be able to cope.
I’d even be willing to subscribe - they seem to want £5 a month for “ad lite” or £12 a month for “ad free”. But I don’t like the decision being made for me and I’m not keen on auto-renewing subscriptions because £12 a month here £5 a month there and they start to add up (I discovered that a few sites allow you to purchase a gift for someone so I gifted myself a year’s membership - it won’t renew at the end of the year so that keeps me in control).
2 Likes
I pay £5 per month subscription and use an ad blocker, but I’m increasingly finding that the best non-UK articles in The Guardian are often from The NY Times, which is a far better newspaper.
Increasingly The Guardian is becoming filled with shallow op-ed pieces on UK trivia and appeals for reader input - eg. ‘Should my mum let me have an Android phone?’ -vote! or ‘Should my girlfriend keep unplugging my chargers?’ - vote. Life’s too short to bother reading this rubbish.
3 Likes
There are at least 5 republican senators who are unhappy about various aspects of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, so there lies what seems to be the last hope of preventing what Reich predicts - assuming there are no other viable constraints.
So, King Trump it may well be, and no doubt persistent resistance from the 18 Democrat States.
Hmmm. Doesn’t do this at all for me. I do get the occasional ‘will you support us’ type popup but perhaps a couple of times a month. I generally view on my tablet that runs over the UK VPN. If it thinks I’m in France it is more insistent.
Strange. I’m using Chrome on an Android tablet.
Might have been an interaction with the ad blocker that I run, it was annoying though 
That’s interesting. Do you normally see ads on the Guardian website ? On my tablet, without ad blocker, with a UK based IP address, I never see ads. If I switch to my native French IP address then I do get ads. Perhaps put an exception into your ad blocker.
Edit: Forgot, I use Firefox for some sites on my android tablet, the Guardian being o e of them. I use uBlock Origin ad blocker on that.
If I use Chrome rather than Firefox on my Android tablet then I get the popup you first mentioned where you have to either subscribe or accept adverts.
Well I read your post twice and have to say (reluctantly) that I agree with every word of it.
Think I will go and lie down until I recover.
1 Like
His cunning plan is chaos. It doesn’t take a stable genius to pull it off.
Don’t think it’s momentary though
2 Likes
I couldn’t possibly say. 
Dugout Dark side of the moon and played that, fully recovered
2 Likes
I wonder how much pressure will be put on them by the big donors who support their re-election campaigns. I just hope that all 5 are nearing retirement.
Perhaps even American Civil War mk2 ?
