President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court over investigations of Israel, a close U.S. ally.

Neither the U.S. nor Israel is a member of or recognizes the court, which has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes over his military response in Gaza after the Hamas attack against Israel in October 2023. Tens of thousands of Palestinians, including children, have been killed during the Israeli military’s response.

The order Trump signed Thursday accuses the ICC of engaging in “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel” and of abusing its power by issuing “baseless arrest warrants” against Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant.

“The ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States or Israel,” the order states, adding that the court had set a “dangerous precedent” with its actions against both countries.

Trump’s action came as Netanyahu was visiting Washington. He and Trump held talks Tuesday at the White House, and Netanyahu spent some of Thursday meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The order says the U.S. will impose “tangible and significant consequences” on those responsible for the ICC’s “transgressions.” Actions may include blocking property and assets and not allowing ICC officials, employees and relatives to enter the United States.

Human rights activists said sanctioning court officials would have a chilling effect and run counter to U.S. interests in other conflict zones where the court is investigating.

“Victims of human rights abuses around the world turn to the International Criminal Court when they have nowhere else to go, and President Trump’s executive order will make it harder for them to find justice,” said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “The order also raises serious First Amendment concerns because it puts people in the United States at risk of harsh penalties for helping the court identify and investigate atrocities committed anywhere, by anyone.”

Hogle said the order “is an attack on both accountability and free speech.”

“You can disagree with the court and the way it operates, but this is beyond the pale,” Sarah Yager, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, said in an interview prior to the announcement.

Like Israel, the U.S. is not among the court’s 124 members and has long harbored suspicions that a global court could arbitrarily prosecute U.S. officials. A 2002 law authorizes the Pentagon to liberate any American or U.S. ally held by the court. In 2020, Trump sanctioned chief prosecutor Karim Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, over her decision to open an inquiry into war crimes committed by all sides, including the U.S., in Afghanistan.

However, those sanctions were lifted under President Joe Biden, and the U.S. began to tepidly cooperate with the tribunal ? especially after Khan in 2023 charged Russian President Vladimir Putin with war crimes in Ukraine.

Driving that turnaround was Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who organized meetings in Washington, New York and Europe between Khan and GOP lawmakers who have been among the court’s fiercest critics.

Elon Musk made a clear promise after Donald Trump decided to put him in charge of making the government more efficient.

“It’s not going to be some sort of backroom secret thing,” Musk said last year. “It will be as transparent as possible,” maybe even streamed live online. It hasn’t worked out that way so far.

In the three weeks since the Republican president has been back in the White House, Musk has rapidly burrowed deep into federal agencies while avoiding public scrutiny of his work. He has not answered questions from journalists or attended any hearings with lawmakers. Staff members for his so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, have sidelined career officials around Washington.

It is a profound challenge not only to business-as-usual within the federal government, which Trump campaigned on disrupting, but to concepts of consensus and transparency that are foundational in a democratic system. Musk describes himself as “White House tech support,” and he has embedded himself in an unorthodox administration where there are no discernible limits on his influence.

Donald K. Sherman, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said Trump has allowed Musk to “exert unprecedented power and authority over government systems” with “maximal secrecy and little-to-no accountability.”

The White House insisted that DOGE is “extremely transparent” and shared examples of its work so far, such as canceling contracts and ending leases for underused buildings. House Republicans said the Trump administration also discovered that Social Security benefits were being paid to a dozen people listed as 150 years old.

“We’re going to find billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse and, you know, the people elected me on that,” Trump said in a Fox News interview to be aired along with the Super Bowl on Sunday. He described Musk as “terrific” and said he would soon focus on the Department of Defense, the country’s largest government agency.

That is true, at least judging by Musk’s social media, where no thought appears to be suppressed. His X account is a flood of internet memes, attacks on critics and professions of loyalty to the president. He has made clear the grand scope of his ambitions, talking in existential terms about the need to reverse the federal deficit, cut government spending and roll back progressive programs.

“This administration has one chance for major reform that may never come again,” he posted on Saturday. “It’s now or never.”

Musk is used to doing things his own way. The world’s richest person, he became wealthy with the online payment service PayPal, then took over the electric car manufacturer Tesla and founded the rocket company SpaceX. More recently, he bought Twitter and rebranded it as X, cutting jobs and remaking its culture.

by legalnewsjournal.com

A federal appeals panel in Richmond, Virginia, heard arguments Monday regarding the unresolved North Carolina Supreme Court election, focusing on jurisdictional issues over whether federal or state courts should decide the fate of approximately 66,000 disputed ballots.

The case involves Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs, who currently leads Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin by 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million cast. Griffin’s attorneys argue that their client would likely win if ballots they claim were cast by ineligible voters are removed from the count. However, the State Board of Elections dismissed Griffin’s request last month to disqualify those votes.

The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deliberated for 90 minutes, questioning attorneys on whether Griffin’s ballot challenge should remain in state court or be heard in federal court. As of now, legal challenges are ongoing in both court systems, creating an unusual situation in one of the nation’s most closely watched judicial elections.

The ballots in question were cast by voters whose registration records reportedly lacked either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number, which state law has required since 2004.

If Griffin prevails, it would expand the conservative majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court from 5-2 to 6-1. Riggs remains on the court while the legal battle continues. The appeals panel has not indicated when it will issue a ruling.

by legalnewsjournal.com

In a significant move just before leaving office, President Joe Biden issued preemptive pardons to Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired General Mark Milley, and members of the House committee that investigated the January 6 Capitol attack. This action aims to protect these individuals from potential politically motivated prosecutions by the incoming administration of President Donald Trump.


Dr. Fauci, who served as the nation's top infectious disease expert, and General Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both faced criticism from Trump and his allies. Members of the January 6 committee have also been targets of political attacks. By granting these pardons, Biden seeks to shield them from what he perceives as unjustified

AP News

The executive order mandates that all departments and agencies responsible for U.S. foreign development assistance immediately pause new obligations and disbursements of funds to foreign countries, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and contractors. This pause will remain in effect pending reviews of such programs for efficiency and consistency with U.S. foreign policy.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized the administration's approach during his confirmation hearing, stating, "Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?"

Consequently, Trump declared that “no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his confirmation hearing last week that “every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions:

Reuters

US refugee group funding suspended under Trump aid pause

Reuters

Flights halted for Afghans approved for special US visas, advocate and official say

theguardian.com

On January 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, appointed by President Reagan, issued a temporary restraining order, labeling the executive action as "blatantly unconstitutional." This decision came in response to lawsuits filed by several states and civil rights organizations, which argued that the order violated the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Legal experts have long interpreted this to mean that anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status, is automatically granted citizenship. The Supreme Court reinforced this interpretation in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that the Constitution grants birthright citizenship to almost all children born in the United States.

In response to the ruling, President Trump has indicated his intention to appeal, setting the stage for a potentially prolonged legal battle that could escalate to the Supreme Court. This development underscores the ongoing tensions surrounding immigration policy and constitutional rights in the United States.

The Supreme Court has reinstated a key provision of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), requiring owners of over 32.6 million small businesses to register personal information with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). This act, designed to combat money laundering and the misuse of anonymous shell companies, was previously blocked by a federal judge in Texas and held by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[Image credit: Pexel]

Key Details of the Ruling:

• What is Required: Small business owners must provide personal information, including photo IDs and home addresses, to FinCEN.
• Purpose: To deter financial crimes and increase transparency in corporate ownership.
• Legal Challenges: Opposed by Republican-led states, conservative groups, and business associations, the law was initially struck down on grounds that Congress overstepped its authority.

Reactions:

• Supporters: Labor, environmental, and progressive groups applaud the decision as a win for transparency.
• Opponents: Business organizations express concerns about compliance challenges and legal uncertainty. The National Small Business Association and Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council have called for clarity and leniency for late filers.

Next Steps:

• The Supreme Court’s decision allows enforcement to proceed while the Texas case continues.
• Advocates for repeal, including business leaders, urge Congress to reassess the mandate.

This decision marks a significant step in the federal government’s efforts to curb illicit financial activities, though its future enforcement and impact remain subjects of heated debate.