Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Irish President Catherine Connolly marked her first St. Patrick’s Day in office with a message that reframed Ireland’s patron saint as a symbol for open borders and ‘global citizenship’, urging the Irish to embrace migrants amid ongoing surges in arrivals that have sparked nationwide tensions.

In a video address, Connolly drew parallels between St. Patrick’s enslavement and modern migration, calling for hospitality toward those displaced by war and persecution—conveniently overlooking how mass influxes of economic migrants have overwhelmed Irish communities and resources.

The full message, delivered against a backdrop of Irish and other flags, emphasized St. Patrick’s story as “a reminder of the resilience and courage of migrants, the invaluable contributions that they have made, and continue to make, to the countries they now call home, sometimes even in the face of great adversity.”

NEW – Ireland’s President urges “global citizens” to acknowledge their “shared responsibility” to invoke St. Patrick’s spirit, by standing in solidarity with migrants and to recognise “the invaluable contributions” they make.pic.twitter.com/Tk98m2eUiX

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 16, 2026

Connolly went on: “Patrick’s story speaks not only to the Ireland of the 5th century, but to the millions still subjected to trafficking, forced labour and displacement today.”

She added, “As we recall the life of Patrick, we invoke his spirit and acknowledge our shared responsibilities as global citizens. We stand in solidarity with those who find themselves in vulnerable and dangerous circumstances.”

The president wrapped up by stressing, “Patrick’s story invites us to respond with hospitality and kindness to those suffering the consequences of war and displacement, those fleeing their countries because of persecution or violence.”

This pivot comes as Ireland ramps up immigration reforms in 2026, including higher salary thresholds for work permits, digitalized processes, and faster citizenship paths for those granted international protection—moves that critics say prioritize foreigners over native Irish struggling with housing shortages and cultural erosion.

The government’s Budget 2026 poured funds into modernizing the system, aiming to streamline legal access for more migrants while protests against accommodation centers continue to simmer across the country.

The message quickly drew fire on X, where users slammed it as a betrayal of Irish identity in favor of globalist talking points.

One poster fired back: “The spirit is St Patrick? Wasn’t he the guy who ‘Chased the SNAKES out of Ireland?!?’ Don’t you see the similarity here?”

Another echoed: “St. Patrick chasing the snakes out of Ireland is not a metaphor for being friends and surrendering Ireland to foreign invaders.”

These reactions highlight growing frustration with leaders who seem more eager to virtue-signal on the world stage than protect their own country’s sovereignty and traditions.

Connolly’s address also touched on Ireland’s neutral stance and commitment to peace, claiming the nation is “uniquely placed” to address global challenges due to its history of famine and migration. But such rhetoric rings hollow as domestic unrest over immigration boils over, with recent changes easing pathways for newcomers while native concerns go unheeded.

This address reeks of complete capitulation. St. Patrick’s Day is supposed to honor Irish patriotism, not serve as a platform for diluting national pride under the guise of “hospitality.” If Ireland wants to preserve its heritage, it’s time to chase out the globalist snakes eroding it from within.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Summary: 

CEO Jensen began discussing all things AI around 1520 ET.

CEO Jensen said the data center AI opportunity will grow from half a trillion dollars to $1 trillion by 2027. CEO Jensen said, “Computing demand has increased by 1 million times in the last two years.”

A graphic on screen indicated that 60% of the business is hyperscalers.

CEO Jensen said, “We are now a computing platform that runs all of AI.”

CEO Jensen said, “Our cost per token is the lowest in the world.”

Nvidia unveiled the new Vera Rubin program.

*   *   * 

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang is speaking at the GTC 2026 in San Jose, California, about the company’s AI expansion.

Huang said the data center AI opportunity is growing from about half a trillion dollars to more than $1 trillion by 2027. He said that 60% of the company’s business comes from hyperscalers, adding that 40% is everything else, clouds, enterprise, robotics, gaming, supercomputing, etc.

The graphic shows that much of the demand is driven by model builders and AI companies such as Anthropic, xAI, Gemini, and OpenAI.

“We are now a computing platform that runs all of AI,” the CEO said. 

The presentation initially sent Nvidia shares up as much as 4.8%, while the Nasdaq also moved higher, but most of those gains have now been erased.

A round trip for Nvidia shares.

Other highlights of Jensen’s presentation include…

Jensen says, “computing demand has increased by 1 million times in the last 2 years.” Hints at the current memory shortage created by the AI buildout of data entry. 

On Tokens per watt: Jensen said, “Nvidia AI GPUs that can quickly get through more tokens than the competition.” He noted, “This is your revenue. Our cost per token is the lowest in the world.”

Nvidia unveils the New Vera Rubin program. It’s the company’s latest AI platform for AI data centers that is “vertically integrated completely with software.

Watch Jensen live here:

Developing…

Summary:

Cuba’s National Electrical System suffered a “total disconnection” on Monday afternoon.

Trump said on Sunday that he expects a U.S.-Cuba deal very soon.

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel admitted on Friday that talks between Havana and Washington are underway.

Cuban fuel supplies are dangerously low amid Trump’s crude import blockade.

*  *  *

Cuba’s National Electrical System has suffered what the country’s Energy Ministry called a “total disconnection,” and the causes are being investigated. This comes as Trump’s blockade of crude oil imports to the Caribbean island has reduced fuel stockpiles to dangerously low levels.

“A total disconnection of the SEN has occurred. The causes are being investigated, and protocols for restoration are being activated,” the Energy Ministry said on X around 1400 ET.

Earlier, we reported that Trump is in talks with Cuba and that a deal could be reached soon.

Over the weekend, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel publicly admitted for the first time that Havana was in talks with Washington.

*  *  * 

As Aldgra Fredly detailed earlier for The Epoch Times, U.S. President Donald Trump said on March 15 that the United States is in talks with Cuba and expects to reach a deal with the communist-ruled country soon.

Tourists ride in an old American car used as a taxi along a quiet avenue in Havana on Feb. 8, 2026.Adalberto Roque/AFP via Getty Images

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that “something will happen with Cuba pretty quickly,” and that Washington will decide on Cuba after dealing with the war in Iran.

Trump on Jan. 11 told Cuba to strike a deal after U.S. forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a Jan. 3 operation. Cuba has long been a close ally of Maduro’s regime and has relied on Venezuela’s oil supply for decades.

After Maduro’s ouster, interim Venezuelan leader Delcy Rodríguez redirected oil deliveries to the United States.

“Cuba also wants to make a deal, and I think we will pretty soon either make a deal or do whatever we ​have to do,” Trump told reporters on March 15. “And so, we’re talking ​to Cuba, but we’re going to do Iran before Cuba.”

On Jan. 29, Trump signed an executive order imposing tariffs on any country that “directly or indirectly provides oil to Cuba,” a move that exacerbated fuel shortages in the Caribbean island nation.

In his order, Trump accused the Cuban regime of aligning itself with “hostile countries, transnational terrorist groups, and malign actors,” including Russia, China, and Iran, as well as U.S.-designated foreign terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez said on March 13 that his government has been negotiating with U.S. officials to identify and resolve any bilateral issues between the two nations.

“These conversations have been aimed at seeking solutions, through dialogue, to bilateral differences that exist between the two nations,” Bermúdez said, according to a statement posted by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla on social media. “There are international factors that have facilitated these exchanges.”

A man pushes a tricycle past a jeep sporting a wheel cover featuring an image of the US flag in Havana on Jan. 23, 2026. Yamil Lage/AFP via Getty Images

Bermúdez said his officials have expressed that negotiations must be held “on the basis of equality and respect for the political systems of both states,” as well as their sovereignty.

“This is a matter that unfolds as part of a very sensitive process that is conducted with seriousness and responsibility, as it affects the bilateral relations between the two nations and requires enormous efforts to find solutions and create spaces for understanding that allow us to move away from confrontation,” he said.

Cuban leader Miguel Diaz-Canel consoles relatives of some of the 32 Cuban soldiers killed during the U.S. operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, during their funeral at Colon cemetery in Havana on Jan. 16, 2026. Adalberto Roque/AFP via Getty Images

Trump said last week that Cuba currently faces severe humanitarian challenges amid disruptions in imported oil and is eager to negotiate with the United States. He also said there could be a “friendly takeover” of the nation, but also said that “it may not be a friendly takeover.”

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has become a big fan of CNN since her departure from Congress since, we’re guessing, FOX and Newsmax aren’t excited to give her a platform of late. On Monday, she appeared on The Situation Room to once again declare doom and gloom for the MAGA movement… with a little help from the host.

During the interview, host Pamela Brown asked what she’s hearing from Trump supporters in Georgia regarding Iran, playing up the Israel angle. 

“Are you hearing from them that they believe President Trump is doing this on behalf of Israel?” she asked. “Bring us there.”

Greene, who has been a thorn in Trump’s side since leaving office, painted a picture of a Republican base that is fractured and angry over the ongoing military operation in Iran, and 

“It’s actually very split. And it’s split along generational lines,” she said.

“Many of the older Americans from the Baby Boomer generation that watch Fox News all day long very much believe the talking points on Fox News, and they have spent decades of their lives convinced that fighting these wars is the right thing to do,” she explained.

She then pointed to the next wave of voters, who see the issue through a completely different lens. 

“But the younger generations – I’m Gen X – millennials and Gen Z are very much against this war,” Greene continued. “And so, when you talk to people on the ground, that’s how it comes across. It’s very generational. And the younger generations are completely against it.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene: “It’s turned into some perverted, deranged version of MAGA now that nobody wants” pic.twitter.com/OceBnJpLnp

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 16, 2026

That sentiment echoes something that has been brewing in conservative politics since Trump entered the political arena. Younger voters inside the America First movement tend to view foreign wars as expensive distractions from domestic priorities. Greene leaned straight into that argument.

“We want world peace. We want good trade. We want a great economy. We want a lower inflation, lower the cost of housing,” she said. “And younger generations want to be able to afford their American lives, and they don’t want their taxpayer dollars shipped off to — and you can fill in any foreign country.”

She emphasized that the frustration extends beyond any one ally or region.

“We will take Israel out of it. They don’t want their money sent overseas,” Greene said. “And you know what? They’re right for saying this.”

She even argued that the military operation in Iran is a betrayal of the movement that carried Donald Trump back into the White House.

“This is absolutely absurd,” she said. “And it’s 100 percent a betrayal to what MAGA was supposed to be when we voted in 2024, and it’s turned into some perverted, deranged version of MAGA now that nobody wants.”

“And a lot of people are just like, this doesn’t make sense,” she added.

Polling on Iran has been mixed.

A CNN poll earlier this month showed that while a majority of voters (59%) opposed military action in Iran, a whopping 77% of Republicans approved of the decision, which hardly suggests the party is divided. However, there may be some truth to what Greene said.

Within the Republican Party, there is a sharp divide between those who say they consider themselves part of the “Make America Great Again” movement and those who do not, a division that appears largely linked to trust in the president. MAGA Republicans are 30 points more likely than non-MAGA Republicans to say they strongly approve of the decision to take military action, 34 points likelier to say it will reduce the threat Iran poses to the US and nearly 50 points more likely to say they have a great deal of trust in Trump to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran.

However, more recent surveys show that Americans have been warming up to the Iran strikes. A Washington Post poll from last week showed the country was more evenly divided on the strikes, with a plurality, 42% supporting the strikes, 40% opposing them, and 17% indicating they were unsure – a stunning change from its previous survey when 52% were opposed, 39% supported, and just 9% were unsure. Republican support for continuing the strikes even increased by 12 points. Fox News similarly reported a more even split of 50% support and 50% opposition, with 84% of Republicans supporting.

Yet, a Quinnipiac poll revealed that support changes drastically when it comes to boots on the ground – which 2,200 Marines may (or may not) provide. 

This past weekend saw a major announcement from the Indo-Pacific Energy Security Ministerial in Tokyo, with the U.S. Export-Import Bank issuing letters of interest for $4.2 billion of capital for Japanese and South Korean reactor owners to purchase low-enriched uranium (LEU) from U.S. enrichment company General Matter. 

The US Export-Import Bank advanced plans for up to $4.2 billion in financing to support Japanese and South Korean nuclear operators’ purchase of enriched fuel from California-based General Matter https://t.co/DxwnQ1BY8q

— Bloomberg (@business) March 15, 2026

The Ex-Im Bank will support up to $2.4 billion for Japanese utilities and $1.8 billion for South Korean utilities looking to purchase enriched uranium from the U.S. as opposed to their long-term supplier, Russia. 

This is part of a larger ongoing effort on two different fronts, with the U.S. looking to secure funding to start up the domestic nuclear fuel chain within its borders by securing foreign investments, as well as the U.S. and its allies looking to diversify from eastern suppliers of critical materials, including enriched uranium. 

The U.S. finally seems to be getting serious about supporting a significant build-out of fuel chain capacity within its borders, as we have well since documented the extremely restricted bottleneck that is the supply of nuclear fuel in America.

General Matter recently was awarded $900 million from the DOE to support capacity build-out for producing high-assay LEU (HALEU) at its planned facility in Paducah, Kentucky. The company has yet to make any serious progress at their site, but has initiated initial discussions with the regulator, the NRC, and has announced additional sites that will support centrifuge construction and potentially additional enrichment facilities.

The U.S. is pursuing more self-reliance on a supply of enriched uranium with three other major companies. The first is with the existing commercial facility in New Mexico, owned and operated by Urenco, a company supported by a consortium of European nations including the U.K., Netherlands, and German utilities.

The second is the only facility in the U.S. currently producing HALEU at roughly 1,000 kilograms per year, owned by Centrus Energy in Ohio. We’ve long detailed their progress with awards from the DOE and ongoing build-out of their enrichment facility. For comparison to the new funding support for General Matter, the backlog for Centrus’s order book currently stands at $2.3 billion. 

The third is Orano, backed by the French government, with their future LEU production facility planned in Tennessee under Project Ike.

General Matter has come out of nowhere to take the U.S. enrichment landscape by storm, supported by Scott Nolan from Founders Fund, along with Peter Thiel sitting on the board. Company leadership was also notably present in the Oval Office as President Trump signed last year’s set of nuclear executive orders. Observers should expect to find General Matter high on the list of leaders within the American enrichment space. 

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

New revelations link the terrorist behind the Michigan synagogue rampage directly to Hezbollah operatives, underscoring the dangers of unchecked immigration from terror hotspots.

America’s borders have been a sieve under leftist policies, allowing potential threats like Iranian proxies to embed themselves in U.S. communities. The recent attack on a Michigan synagogue by Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, a Lebanese immigrant, highlights how foreign terror networks can strike from within, especially when activated by regimes like Iran’s.

The revelations bolster concerns that this is part of a broader pattern of Iranian backed sleeper cells and individuals infiltrating the U.S. With family ties to Hezbollah’s rocket units, Ghazali’s actions expose the real cost of open-border globalism that prioritizes everything but American safety.

🚨 IT’S OFFICIAL: The Muslim who attacked the synagogue in Michigan has family ties to a HEZBOLLAH ROCKET UNIT — an Iranian-backed Muslim terror group that targets civilians

INFURIATING that he is even in America.

Ayman Mohamad Ghazali — “Sources say his brothers in Lebanon… pic.twitter.com/NNGnB4rMOd

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 15, 2026

The attack unfolded on Thursday, when Ghazali rammed his truck into Temple Israel in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan, a synagogue complex housing a preschool. Armed and carrying fireworks intended as explosives, he engaged in a shootout with security before inflicting a fatal gunshot wound on himself.

Surveillance footage captured Ghazali purchasing over $2,000 worth of fireworks just days prior, a chilling prelude to his attempt to ignite terror in a place of worship.

Ghazali, born in Lebanon, entered the U.S. legally in 2011 on a spousal visa and gained citizenship in 2016. He lived in Dearborn Heights, working at a local restaurant—seemingly integrated, but harboring connections that proved deadly.

Sources confirmed his brothers in Lebanon were members of a Hezbollah rocket unit, the Iranian-backed group notorious for targeting civilians. Those same brothers, along with Ghazali’s niece and nephew, were killed in an Israeli airstrike on March 5, potentially fueling his rage.

This development echoes warnings about Iranian sleeper cells being activated across the U.S., particularly to target figures like President Trump. As we previously reported, intelligence indicated Tehran’s proxies were mobilizing to eliminate threats to their regime, exploiting weak borders to embed operatives.

The media’s response? Predictable deflection. CNN wasted no time blaming President Trump for the synagogue attack, ignoring the obvious ties to foreign terrorism and instead pushing narratives that shield border failures.

Ghazali had been flagged in U.S. databases for connections to suspected Hezbollah members, though not deemed an active member himself. Yet he roamed free, a ticking bomb in America’s heartland.

Community leaders in Dearborn Heights, including the mayor, condemned the violence while also acknowledging Ghazali’s recent family loss—but emphasized there’s no justification for terror.

Replies amplified the sentiment, with one X user stating, “The Trojan horse Biden administration tried to facilitate the fall of our great nation.” Another noted, “Democrats are using every means to keep these illegals in the US.”

Federal raids on Ghazali’s home followed, as investigators probe deeper into his potential role in a wider network.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

The Make America Healthy Again agenda just found its first serious legal challenger. This week, five food stamp recipients filed suit in Washington, D.C., federal court demanding the right to spend taxpayer-funded SNAP benefits on candy, soda, and energy drinks. 

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over its growing list of “food restriction” waivers, which Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins began approving back in May 2025. Since then, 22 states have signed on, each with their own specific list of banned items — generally soda, energy drinks, candy, and pre-packaged desserts. 

Both Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have championed the waivers as a concrete step toward addressing chronic disease and redirecting taxpayer money toward genuinely nutritious food. 

“The Trump Administration is unified in improving the health of our nation. America’s governors have proudly answered the call to innovate by improving nutrition programs, ensuring better choices while respecting the generosity of the American taxpayer,” Rollins said last year.

“Each waiver submitted by the states and signed is yet another step closer to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.”

The lawsuit claims they had no right to do this. 

The five plaintiffs. residents of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, and represented by the law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner, argue in their complaint that the restrictions “destabilize food access” for SNAP participants in the 22 affected states.

They claim the USDA exceeded its legal authority by approving the waivers without soliciting public input, establishing proper evaluation metrics, or engaging those directly impacted by the waivers first, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

The lawsuit further contends that the relevant section of the Food and Nutrition Act only authorizes pilot projects designed to “enhance the efficiency” or improve the delivery of benefits — and that banning specific food items accomplishes neither.

“SNAP is a critical lifeline for millions of families and households, and Congress has established clear guardrails for how the program must operate across the country,” Jeffrey Shinder, founding partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner, claimed in a statement to Newsweek.

“The USDA is attempting to bypass those strict guardrails by empowering states to curtail access to SNAP in ways that will create significant hardship on recipients and retailers. We urge the Court to halt this attack on SNAP, which threatens millions of individuals’ access to essential food assistance nationwide.” 

The plaintiffs claim they or their family members rely on the restricted foods to manage health conditions such as diabetes and allergies, or to obtain energy boosts for daily life.

The claim that sugary drinks and candy are medically necessary for diabetics runs directly counter to established dietary guidance. One plaintiff argues that her state’s waiver would restrict her daughter to only three “safe” foods and beverages — one of which is bottled water. 

The plaintiffs also argue that confusion is another problem impacting SNAP recipients.

“We are focused on litigating the case we filed yesterday and securing relief for the plaintiffs already before the Court. At the same time, we remain open to expanding the case to challenge similar waivers in additional states. SNAP serves as an essential support system for millions of families,” added Meegan Hollywood, a partner at the firm.

“The waivers create confusion at checkout and force retailers to apply standards that are vague and unworkable. A program that millions of families rely on cannot operate amid confusion and uncertainty. Our complaint details how these policies are already harming recipients in multiple states and undermining the very families SNAP is meant to support.”

That framing assumes junk food is a non-negotiable line item. Recipients who want soda and candy remain free to purchase them — with their own money.

The Department of Homeland Security’s social media team on X spent the weekend blaming Democrats for the travel chaos unfolding at airports nationwide, as TSA agents failed to report to work during a funding lapse caused by Senate Democrats’ refusal to fund the DHS budget without reforms to ICE and Border Patrol.

“Thanks to the Democrats’ shutdown, travelers at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport are again seeing MASSIVE security lines this morning,” DHS said on X on Saturday. “The Democrats’ political games are making spring break travel a NIGHTMARE for Americans as they continue to withhold funding from DHS and refuse to pay our heroic @TSA officers.”

Thanks to the Democrats’ shutdown, travelers at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport are again seeing MASSIVE security lines this morning.

The Democrats’ political games are making spring break travel a NIGHTMARE for Americans as they continue to withhold funding from DHS and… https://t.co/KsChjpcDnJ

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) March 15, 2026

DHS said Sunday that “Airports coast to coast are seeing major delays, HOURS-long security lines, and missed flights because of the Democrats’ DHS shutdown.”

Airports coast to coast are seeing major delays, HOURS-long security lines, and missed flights because of the Democrats’ DHS shutdown.

SAVE SPRING BREAK. REOPEN DHS NOW. https://t.co/ABeVfNiG2C

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) March 15, 2026

A reader on Sunday evening sent ZeroHedge Tips a photo showing, he said, roughly 200 travelers stuck in line at BWI Airport’s international customs, with only two CBP agents staffing the booths while at least a dozen booths sat empty. He added that the Global Entry line had only a handful of passengers, who were waved through quickly, while non-Global Entry travelers were left waiting in what seemed like an hours-long line.

Last weekend, similar travel chaos unfolded at some airports, with TSA lines taking hours just to enter terminals. The disruption prompted ten U.S. airline and aviation heads to pen an open letter to Congress on Sunday, urging lawmakers to resolve the DHS funding dispute.

“That comes as no surprise. Americans—who live in your districts and home states—are tired of long lines at airports, travel delays and flight cancellations caused by shutdown after shutdown. Yet, once again air travel is the political football amid another government shutdown,” the chief executive officers of Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, American Airlines, Alaska Air Group, Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways, and United Parcel Service wrote in the letter.

The executives continued, “It’s past time for the government to make sure that TSA officers, U.S. Customs clearance officers at airports, and air traffic controllers are paid for the job they do.”

The current political battle has persisted for nearly a month after Senate Democrats refused to fund a DHS budget without reforms to ICE and Border Patrol. Democrats are frustrated that Trump is using the federal government to deport illegal aliens (whom they consider a potential future voting bloc). Democrats would like to see ICE significantly reformed or eliminated, as they view its power as an existential threat to their political party’s survivability.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Last week, Chief Judge James Boasberg delivered a blow to the criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell by tossing out grand jury subpoenas. Boasberg declared the investigation overtly political and coercive, without any criminal predicate. The decision is a rare rejection of a duly issued grand jury subpoena at this stage of an investigation. In my view, he was premature and could face a difficult appeal in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, Bd. of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. U.S.

I have previously expressed skepticism about the investigation into Powell and share concerns about the alleged use of the criminal justice system to pressure the Federal Reserve Board. However, the question is when a court can make such a judgment at this stage of the investigation. Prosecutors are generally entitled to make their case and these subpoenas sought potential evidence of waste or corruption.

Boasberg has long been one of the most vocal critics of President Donald Trump on the bench, including a series of orders to stop the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador and, recently, an order for their return. He was also the subject of an ethics complaint by the Administration over statements made at a judicial conference that portrayed President Trump as a threat to the rule of law. (For the record, I opposed the effort to impeach Judge Boasberg).

In the latest controversy, Boasberg rejected the premise of the criminal investigation of Powell:

“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.”

Judge Boasberg quotes Trump’s personal attacks on Powell after he continued to refuse to lower interest rates. These include signature all-caps attacks from the President:

“Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS …. Put another way, ‘Too Late’ is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!”

Boasberg noted over 100 such postings, including “‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government …. TOO LATE’s an American Disgrace!”

He also noted a menacing statement by the President that, if the Fed does not cut rates, “I may have to force something.”

This is not the first time that the President’s social media postings have been used as evidence against Administration policies in federal cases.

Many of us have criticized the President over personal attacks on judges or other officials.

However, courts generally do not impute an unlawful motive to criminal investigations or prosecutions if there is an otherwise valid purpose or allegation.

Judge Boasberg dismisses any such possibility of a valid purpose, writing:

“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.

On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts. It will therefore grant the Board’s Motion to Quash. It will also grant the Board’s Motion to Partially Unseal the Motion to Quash, related briefing, and this Opinion….”

Once again, I do not fault the court for skepticism, but I do have serious concerns over his timing and his own possible bias in issuing such a ruling.

The Administration has an active but still early criminal investigation into the massive spending on renovations to the Federal Reserve building. To that end, the Justice Department served two subpoenas on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, seeking records about the renovations of the Board’s buildings as well as Powell’s prior congressional testimony on those renovations. The Board filed a Motion to Quash, contending that the subpoenas are a raw play to force Powell to resign or to bend to the will of the President.

After reading the Boasberg opinion, my concerns only increased. At every juncture, Judge Boasberg ends his analysis with conclusory statements about his perception of the real motivation behind the case. That is a dangerous propensity for an Article III judge who must separate the politics from the merits in such challenges. In this case, Boasberg simply concluded that politics was the merits.

The court notes, correctly, that there are prior cases where grand jury subpoenas have been found improper if they are simply “fishing expeditions” or targeting “targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to harass.” They can also be quashed if prosecutors are seeking to meddle with an official’s duties. Such cases are very rare and the cited cases do not seem dispositive or even particularly helpful in the instant case.

The problem is that the main precedent relied on by the court suggests that this opinion is not just premature but itself an example of bias.

The court relies on Trump v. Vance to support the authority to quash an indictment. However, that case involved state prosecutors using grand-jury subpoenas financial records of President Trump and his businesses. Without actually ruling on whether the subpoenas were proper, the Court warned that state DAs cannot use grand-jury subpoenas to “interfer[e] with a President’s official duties.”

That case presented a threshold problem of state officials using the grand jury to target a president with obvious concerns over the Supremacy Clause. Judge Boasberg rightly noted that the clear import is that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly ….”

However, this is not something that the Justice Department is “barred from doing directly.” It has stated that the over-budget renovations raise concerns over fraud and wrongdoing. That is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.

Judge Boasberg cited cases such as NRA of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 190 (2024) as an example of the bar on doing indirectly what you are barred from doing directly. However, like Vance, that case only makes this opinion stand out more. The case involved a New York state official using her powers to pressure banks and other companies not to do business with the NRA. That is manifestly different from the context in which prosecutors seek to enforce duly issued subpoenas to investigate possible fraud or waste in the criminal system.

Judge Boasberg then veers significantly from these cases with a series of conclusory remarks. He virtually mocks the suggestion that the Administration is acting in light of the massive costs and overruns, noting “buildings often go over budget.” Yet that does not mean federal officials are therefore barred from launching investigations into such matters.

The court further stresses that budget overruns “standing alone, hardly suggests that a crime occurred.” The question, again, is whether the required threshold is showing. The costs of the federal building are breathtaking and arguably unprecedented in terms of square foot expenditures. The court does not explain what showing is necessary to commence a criminal investigation. This is an early subpoena seeking basic documentary evidence.

The court notes that inspectors general have authority to investigate overruns and waste, adding that there was no such finding in this case. However, once again, the question is why that is relevant to the question before the Court. The IG may indeed be a better avenue for investigation, but there is nothing legally that forestalls an investigation by the Justice Department.

Once again, Judge Boasberg has voiced concerns shared by many on the basis of this criminal investigation. However, that is speculation in commentary. Judge Boasberg is not a talking head. He is a federal judge who must decide whether, despite such personal suspicions or inclinations, the court can bar otherwise valid grand jury subpoenas issued in an early stage of investigation.

The irony is that, while castigating the prosecutors for a lack of evidence, Judge Boasberg relies on dubious evidence to establish that political harassment is the dominant motivation. Quoting all-caps postings of the President does not offer evidence of a sole or dominant motive in an investigation. It is itself speculative and presumptive.

While Judge Boasberg notes that, “[w]ith varied improper purposes popping up on different occasions, it is clear that such purposes cannot be reduced to a fixed and exhaustive list,” he does not offer any clarity on when an investigation into fraud or waste would be demonstrably valid in its earliest stages. The court acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held there is no need for the Government to establish probable cause as the basis for issuing a grand-jury subpoena.

So that is the standard here other than Judge Boasberg’s suspicions based on public statements from the President?

The court merely states

“What the Court must determine is whether the Board is correct in its inference. In other words, what is these subpoenas’ dominant purpose? A mountain of evidence suggests that the dominant purpose is to harass Powell to pressure him to lower rates.”

That dominant purpose is far from evident. There is no evidence that Powell will yield to the pressure to lower rates, and many of us have noted that this would be a particularly ham-handed effort to get him to do so. From what we have seen, Powell has little to fear from this inquiry on a personal level. If anything, the improper purpose would seem like raw retaliation. However, there is also the pesky claim in the grand jury and captured in these subpoenas that the Administration believes that there is fraud or waste – and the possibility of false testimony. How would the court know at this stage that such claims are meritless or fraudulent? More importantly, what would stop future courts from rendering the same inferential judgment on presidents that they oppose?

Rather than answer that question, Boasberg returns to all-caps posts about how much the President despises Powell and wants him gone. The problem is that both positions could be true. The President could want Powell gone while the Justice Department could want to investigate waste and fraud.

For example, Boasberg quotes Trump as saying “we’re thinking about bringing a gross incompetence, what’s called a gross incompetence lawsuit, it’s gross incompetence, against Powell . . . I’d love to fire him. Maybe I still might.”

The problem is that Trump could believe that Powell is grossly incompetent and that he allowed massive overruns on this project. Boasberg just assumes that Trump wants Powell gone and even makes a veiled analogy to King Henry II signaling to his henchmen to kill Thomas Becket:

“In sum, the President spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of this troublesome Fed Chair.” 

(In this modern remake, apparently the murderous King is Trump, the saintly Becket is Powell, and the henchman is Pirro).

What is particularly disturbing is how the court dismisses the independent ethical duty of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to have a good-faith basis for seeking such subpoenas. 

Judge Boasberg writes:

“True, most of the evidence above speaks to the motives of the President, not the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Yet judges ‘are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.’ Dep’t of Com. v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 785 (2019) (quotation marks omitted). The U.S. Attorney was appointed by the President and can be fired by him. Her peer one district over was recently pushed out for refusing to prosecute the President’s opponents.”

This, for me, was the final abandonment of objectivity where assumptions become reality. By dismissing Pirro’s independent motivation, Boasberg leaves the weight of his own evidence as a string of social media posts. He ignores a major push by the administration to seek out government waste and fraud, which began with the DOGE efforts and was recently followed by the appointment of a “tsar” to root out fraud in federal programs. There is no serious debate that this Administration has made combating fraud and waste a priority and has taken unprecedented steps to investigate and prosecute such wrongdoing. Yet the court suggests that Pirro is merely clinging to her job by blindly carrying out the President’s demands.

None of this means that the court would lack the authority or a possible basis to dismiss this action at a later stage. My primary concern is the timing and the court’s presumptive analysis at this early stage. I fail to see a discernible standard in this case that would inform future courts or officials … other than presidents should not post in all caps or troll officials. While Judge Boasberg chastises the Justice Department for yielding too readily to its impulses, this opinion seems strikingly impulsive in critical aspects.

The Justice Department is appealing this opinion. We may see greater clarity on the underlying standard as the case works toward the Supreme Court.

Here is the opinion: Boasberg Opinion