Justice Amy Coney Barrett admits Trump could be beyond the Supreme Court’s control
In an interview released on Thursday, Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Comey Barrett had to be asked twice what the nation’s highest court would do if Donald Trump turned up his nose at an adverse ruling and refused to abide by it.
In a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, Barrett was first asked about the extent of the president’s power over the government that has been a central tenet of Trump’s second term as his inner circle has pushed the so-called “unitary executive theory" that slots him above the legislative and judicial branches of government.
According to Trump’s last appointee to the court, who replaced the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, “It would imply strong presidential power over executive agencies. There has been a lot of debate and some new originalist scholarship debating right now whether indeed it has sound originalist credentials. But yes, it is one that has traditionally been associated with originalists.”
She then noted that debate is currently being addressed “in some of the cases on the court’s docket now.”
With that looming over the court as an avalanche of challenges to the current president are overwhelming federal courts, Douthat pointed out to the justice, “The Supreme Court does not command the power of the purse, doesn’t command the military, doesn’t have police powers. What it has, in a sense, is prestige, public support, a historic constitutional role.”
Adding, “... we’re in a moment — and we don’t have to make this specific to the Trump White House — when it’s very easy to imagine, from either the left or the right, some present or future president deciding to test the court, Andrew Jackson-style, saying: Interesting ruling, Justice Barrett. Good luck enforcing it,” he proposed, “How do you think about that potential challenge, as a member of the court?”
Admitting the NYT columnist was correct, Coney Barrett attempted, “... just as the court must take account of the consequences on the institutional dynamics, say, between a current president and a future president, the balance of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch, that of course, those same kinds of institutional concerns for the long run are ones that play a part in the court’s separation of powers decisions and always have, because they also are reflected in concerns of the constitutional structure.”
Unsatisfied with the lack of clarity in her answer, Douthat pressed, “OK, let me try that again: If a president defied the Supreme Court, what would you do?”
Coney Barrett then admitted that the court’s hands would be tied because there is no enforcement mechanism at their disposal.
“Well, as you say, the court lacks the power of the purse. We lack the power of the sword,” she conceded. “And so, we interpret the Constitution, we draw on precedents, we have these questions of structure, and we make the most with the tools that we have.”
You can read her entire interview here.
‘Give me a break!’ Tom Homan flees reporters as he refuses to deny taking $50K bribe
Border czar Tom Homan dodged reporters at the White House as he refused to say if he took a $50,000 cash bribe in an FBI sting.
Despite finding time for a Fox News interview on Thursday, Homan immediately turned and walked quickly to avoid other reporters at the White House.
"I don't have time today, folks. I'm 20 minutes late," he said.
"Did you take the $50,000 cash in a bag?" one reporter shouted.
"Give me a break!" Homan responded as he fled.
After reports emerged last month that Homan had taken $50,000 cash from undercover FBI agents posing as businessmen seeking government contracts, Fox News host Laura Ingraham asked him about the allegations.
"I did nothing criminal or illegal," the border czar said without denying that he took the cash. The Fox News host declined to ask a follow-up question.
"This response will likely trigger more reporters to ask [the] same question," CBS News correspondent Scott MacFarlane predicted after Homan dodged the question on Thursday.
‘We defended that evil ideology’: Mike Johnson makes horrific gaffe in Nazi speech
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) made a horrific apparent gaffe when discussing a swastika spotted in a Republican congressman's office.
U.S. Capitol Police were called to investigate a display of an American flag altered to show the Nazi symbol pinned to a wall in a cubicle used by Angelo Elia, a staffer for Rep. Dave Taylor (R-OH), and the GOP speaker attempted to distance the party from fascist ideology.
"With regard to the swastika thing, this happened last night, a Republican congressman, allegedly, one of his staffers had something in the background, something in a Zoom, that's what I heard this morning," Johnson told reporters. "He says that that's not his and there was a proper investigation ongoing, and the congressman did exactly what he should have done, and that is report it. It's under investigation, and I can't comment on it any further until that's done."
The swastika display was noticed a day after Politico reported on a Young Republican group chat where organization leaders used racial slurs, joked about the Holocaust, celebrated slavery and rape, and praised Adolf Hitler.
"But I will say, obviously, that is not the principles of the Republican Party," Johnson said. "We stand for the founding principles of America – want me to articulate them for you right now? Individual freedom, limited government, the rule of law, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free markets, human dignity – the things that lead to human flourishing."
"We have stood against that, we have fought against the Nazis," Johnson added, and then apparently misspoke before insisting Nazi sympathies were a problem in both parties. "We defended that evil ideology. We roundly condemn it, and anybody in any party who espouses it, we're opposing that."
Epic Freudian slip
"We fought the Nazis, we defended that evil ideology" -Mike Johnson pic.twitter.com/uvVcUtNBJT
— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) October 16, 2025
Kash Patel faces deadline to swat down ‘inherently plausible’ drinking allegations
FBI Director Kash Patel has five days to respond to a motion arguing his own public record proves The Atlantic's drinking allegations are 'inherently plausible.'
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan set the Aug. 17 deadline after granting a joint extension request, according to the court docket. The Atlantic filed its motion to dismiss on July 27.
The Atlantic's April story, "The FBI Director is MIA," reported that Patel drank to excess, missed work, and posed a national-security risk. Patel called it false and sued for $250 million.
"Print it, all false, I'll see you in court—bring your checkbook," Patel told the magazine through his spokesman before it published.
The Atlantic's lawyers argue Patel cannot meet the legal standard required of public officials in defamation cases. That standard — called actual malice — requires proof that a publisher knew a story was false or strongly suspected it was, according to the filing.
"The Complaint does not come close to satisfying this demanding constitutional standard," the filing said. "It does not allege a single fact showing that any statement in the Article is false, much less that Defendants had 'serious doubts' or 'actual knowledge of falsity' for any of these statements."
The filing goes further, arguing Patel's own public behavior undercuts his suit, according to the motion.
"The Article itself shows that the Allegedly Defamatory Statements are not implausible," the filing said, "but rather inherently plausible."
The filing said reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick spoke to more than two dozen sources, according to the motion. They included current and former FBI officials, members of Congress, and hospitality workers.
Six sources confirmed that briefings had to be rescheduled because of Patel's alcohol-fueled nights, the motion said.
Nine sources confirmed he panicked when a computer malfunction led him to believe he had been fired, according to the filing.
The story described officials telling Fitzpatrick that Patel's security detail had difficulty waking him on multiple occasions, and that a request was made for specialized breaching equipment — tools normally used by SWAT teams — because he was unreachable behind locked doors, according to the filing.
The filing noted that Patel's drinking was already a matter of public record before the story ran.
In February, Patel was filmed chugging beer in the U.S. men's Olympic hockey team's locker room in Milan. FBI headquarters was simultaneously managing a cartel violence outbreak in Mexico, CNN reported.
Days after The Atlantic published, a 2005 letter from Patel's Florida Bar application — obtained by The Intercept — disclosed he had been arrested twice on alcohol-related charges, once for public intoxication in 2001 and once for public urination after leaving a bar in 2005.
The story's fallout reached Capitol Hill the following month, according to Senate records.
At a May budget hearing, Patel agreed to take an alcohol use disorders test after Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) demanded it. Patel called the allegations "a total farce."
The Atlantic suit is the latest in a long line, according to the motion.
A federal judge in Texas dismissed Patel's defamation suit against MS NOW analyst Frank Figliuzzi the day after Patel filed against The Atlantic. The judge called Figliuzzi's comment about Patel's nightclub visibility "rhetorical hyperbole."
None of Patel's five defamation suits has succeeded, according to the filing.
Patel's response is due Aug. 17. The Atlantic's reply is due Aug. 31.
