The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., issued a ruling Monday to restore a lower court’s order barring the Trump administration’s planned mass layoffs at the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau (CFPB).

The court ruled 2-1 to restore an earlier ruling by federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, which temporarily halted the Trump administration’s reductions in force (RIF) at CFPB, which would have cut the agency’s staff by 90 percent.

Before Jackson’s ruling, the agency was slated to carry out a reduction in force of roughly 1,400 employees, which would have left just several hundred in place. 

Following a legal challenge against the reduction filed in the D.C. district court in early February, Jackson issued a preliminary injunction in late March, finding that the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits.

The order directed the government to ‘rehire all terminated employees, reinstate all terminated contracts, and refrain from engaging in reductions-in-force or attempting to stop work through any means.’ 

Jackson then ordered another halt to plans earlier this month, shortly after an appeals court narrowed her earlier injunction. Jackson noted that within several days of an appeals order narrowing her initial injunction, CFPB employees were told the agency would do ‘exactly what it was told not to do,’ which was to carry out a RIF. 

Jackson blocked the administration from moving forward with any layoffs or from cutting off employees’ access to computers at the bureau until she had time to hear from the officials in question.

Jackson said she was ‘willing to resolve it quickly,’ but noted that she is ‘deeply concerned, given the scope and scope of action.’

Lawyers with the Justice Department sought to appeal Jackson’s order earlier this year, arguing in a filing that the injunction ‘improperly intrudes on the executive [branch’s] authority’ and goes ‘far beyond what is lawful.’

Jackson is set to hear testimony from officials slated to carry out the RIF procedures on Tuesday. 

Pakistan’s defense minister on Monday said he believes an incursion by India is ‘imminent’ as tensions remain heightened following a militant attack in India’s Kashmir region last week, which saw the killing of 26 people, first reported Reuters. 

India, which has not named any group it suspects of leading the attack but said it believes Pakistan to have backed the militants involved in the assault, has reportedly engaged in an aggressive hunt to find those involved in the deadliest attack in two decades. 

According to a BBC report, Indian authorities have used explosives to demolish properties allegedly linked to the suspects, more than 1,500 people have been detained for questioning and troops from both India and Pakistan have exchanged cross-border small arms fire.

‘We have reinforced our forces because it is something which is imminent now. So in that situation, some strategic decisions have to be taken, so those decisions have been taken,’ Pakistan Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif told Reuters on Monday from the capital city of Islamabad. 

Asif did not say why he thought a possible incursion from India was imminent, but noted that allies in the Gulf had been informed, who in turn had apparently communicated the situation on the ground with officials in China and the U.S.

The New York Times on Monday similarly reported that India appeared to be building its case for possible military intervention as Prime Minister Narendra Modi had been engaging in mass diplomatic outreach by speaking with more than a dozen world leaders about the situation.

The feud between India and Pakistan predates last week’s attack by nearly 80 years, following Britain’s decision to end its direct rule in the region following World War II and enact the 1947 Partition of British India, which essentially divided modern-day India and Pakistan based on Hindu and Muslim populations — though it caused massive unrest and displacement along religious lines.

The partition also gave the diverse Jammu and Kashmir region the ability to choose if it wanted to join either newly established nation. 

Ultimately, the conflict ongoing today stems from the previous monarch of the region’s initial attempt to seek independence, followed by its decision to join India in exchange for security against invading Pakistani militias.

India and Pakistan have engaged in several wars and cross-border skirmishes in the decades since. 

While President Donald Trump said last week that resolving the decades-old conflict was down to New Delhi and Islamabad to sort out, the State Department said it was working with both sides to encourage a ‘responsible solution.’

The U.S. military has pummeled over 800 targets since mid-March in a campaign aimed at eliminating Houthi terrorists and restoring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, according to an update from Central Command. 

Since the start of ‘Operation Rough Rider’ on March 15, U.S. forces have executed an ‘intense and sustained campaign’ to dismantle the Iran-backed Houthi terrorist organization’s capabilities, CENTCOM said Monday. The strikes have destroyed critical military infrastructure, including command centers, air defense systems, advanced weapons manufacturing sites and stockpiles of anti-ship missiles and drones.

‘These strikes have killed hundreds of Houthi fighters and numerous Houthi leaders, including senior Houthi missile and UAV officials,’ the statement read. 

The Houthis’ ability to launch attacks on international shipping has taken a major hit. U.S. officials say ballistic missile launches have dropped by 69%, while attacks by one-way suicide drones have fallen by 55% since the operation began.

The Ras Isa Port – previously a key Houthi fueling hub – was also destroyed, cutting off a vital revenue stream the group used to fund its terror activities.

The update came after concerns over the rapid rate at which the offensive campaign has depleted munitions stockpiles, and congressional officials say the campaign has already cost over $1 billion, the New York Times first reported. 

The Houthis have said they will continue to lob projectiles and launch drones toward Western commercial and military ships in the Red Sea in a show of solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza and Hamas.

Sunday’s update was the first after six weeks of bombing on how many targets had been struck.

It did not reveal how many civilians had been killed or the cost of the campaign. The U.S. now has two aircraft carriers in the region and has sent in new fighter, bomber and air defense units.

‘To preserve operational security, we have intentionally limited disclosing details of our ongoing or future operations. We are very deliberate in our operational approach, but will not reveal specifics about what we’ve done or what we will do,’ the statement read. 

Despite U.S. claims of success, some lawmakers and military analysts have questioned whether the strikes are achieving lasting results. Critics argue that while the campaign has degraded some Houthi capabilities, it has not fully stopped attacks on shipping vessels, U.S. Navy ships, or international maritime traffic.

‘We will continue to ratchet up the pressure until the objective is met, which remains the restoration of freedom of navigation and American deterrence in the region,’ the statement said. 

The Houthi offensive was at the center of a bombshell report on a Signal group of top Trump Cabinet officials who used the chat to discuss details and, in the case of Vice President JD Vance, air complaints about the planned strikes. 

‘I think we are making a mistake,’ Vance wrote in the Signal chat, later published by The Atlantic.

‘I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.’ The commercial ships being attacked in the Red Sea are largely European. 

House Republicans are rushing to get started on a multitrillion-dollar bill to advance President Donald Trump’s agenda, with their own leader’s self-imposed deadline less than a month away.

Lawmakers on five different committees are huddling within their panels this week to debate and advance specific aspects of what will become one massive piece of legislation

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said he wants to get a bill on Trump’s desk by Memorial Day – a goal he’s still optimistic about, despite a host of challenges that Republicans will need to get through before the finish line.

Meanwhile, the Senate and House appear to still be far apart on their expected timelines and how much money they’re aiming to spend.

‘This is not just a preference we have, this is a necessity,’ Johnson told Fox News Digital about the Memorial Day deadline in an interview on Friday. 

‘We have the debt limit X-date approaching, and as everybody knows, border security resources dwindling, we’ve got markets in flux, we’ve got, of course, the living threat of the largest tax increase on working families in history.’

Republicans are seeking to fit Trump’s priorities on energy, defense, border security and taxes into the bill, as well as raise the debt ceiling – another item the president specifically asked GOP lawmakers to deal with.

Johnson pointed out that the U.S. is fast approaching its deadline to act on the debt ceiling or risk a national credit default – which would send financial markets into a tailspin. The federal government is expected to hit that deadline sometime this spring or summer, according to differing projections.

‘I’ve got to work on the assumption that it’ll be sooner, it may be as early as June,’ Johnson said. ‘I can’t control what happens in the Senate, but I think they have the same sense of urgency, so I think that we’re on target to get it by Memorial Day or shortly thereafter.’

A Senate GOP leadership aide appeared less optimistic, however.

They told Fox News Digital that Republicans in the upper chamber shared the goal of moving as quickly as possible but acknowledged ‘the reality’ of differing procedures in the House and Senate.

The House’s framework for the legislation passed first and called for at least $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion in spending cuts to offset a portion of the $4.5 trillion allocated toward Trump’s tax agenda.

The Senate later passed an amended version that called for a minimum of $4 billion in spending cuts.

House Republicans narrowly swallowed that framework to align with the Senate – a key step before the relevant committees noted in the framework can begin crafting policies within their jurisdictions, to later be filled into the final bill.

A revolt against that bill by an unlikely faction of well-known GOP rebels and leaders on the House Budget Committee prompted Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to publicly pledge to have the Senate aim for $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. 

But on paper, they’re still far apart, and there’s a significant contingent in the House and Senate who are wary of cutting funding for critical programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

‘The fight is between the House, that wants to add $2.8 trillion on the debt, and the Senate, that wants to add $5.8 trillion on the debt,’ said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). ‘So I’m not optimistic that we’re going to reduce the debt. I am somewhat optimistic that we’re going to get closer to what the House wants, which would be much better.’

But a significant amount – about $880 billion – of spending cuts outlined in the House GOP framework come from the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicare and Medicaid.

Estimates have shown that the committee will not be able to complete those cuts without cutting into those programs, but Republican leaders have insisted they’re only looking to root out ‘waste, fraud and abuse.’

Republicans are looking to pass their legislation via the budget reconciliation process. The mechanism allows the party in power to pass massive policy overhauls while entirely sidelining the opposing party by dropping the Senate’s threshold for passage from 60 votes to 51.

The House already operates on a simple majority threshold.

The House committees set to meet this week to mark up their reconciliation bills are the Homeland Security, Oversight, Education & Workforce, and Financial Services.

Issues that are expected to be more divisive – like portions from the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, which writes tax policy – will be visited next week.

I began my journalism career at The Federalist, an outlet that was founded with only one official editorial position; ending the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. I agreed with it at the time, but having grown since, I now see the error of my ways and am calling to disband the entire White House Correspondents’ Association.  

On Saturday, April 26, in Washington, D.C., the WHCA held its annual dinner, once a time-honored tradition of the capital. Now it is a shell of itself that the president does not even attend, and an event for which the organization struggles to find a host who won’t perform a seizure of hatred toward President Donald Trump. 

Of course, this year the entire farce was held under the cloud of the liberal news organizations that cover the presidency having failed to report that President Joe Biden, as commander in chief, was not only not in charge, but often barely awake. 

Look at what WCHA President Eugene Daniels actually said in his opening remarks, I had to read it twice to believe it: ‘I know this has been an extremely difficult year for all of you. It’s been difficult for this association. We’ve been tested, attacked, but every single day our members get up, they run to the White House, plane, train, automobile with one mission, holding the powerful accountable.’ 

Holding the powerful accountable? Where was this H.L. Mencken attitude when Grandpa Joe was dithering away in the West Wing?  

Then there was journalist Alex Thompson, who mused the following, ‘President Biden’s decline and its cover-up by the people around him is a reminder that every White House, regardless of party, is capable of deception. … We, myself included, missed a lot of this story and some people trust us less because of it.’ 

This is the same Thompson hawking a book he wrote with CNN anchor Jake Tapper about the Biden administration. Jake Tapper! That guy not only ignored Biden’s obvious infirmity, he chided as crackpots anyone who did point it out. 

Thomspson, like a sweet, summer child, doesn’t get it, yet. It’s not that many Americans trust the news media ‘less,’ it’s that they don’t trust us at all, about anything.  

Not everything in life comes with second chances. These people covering Biden flat out blew it, and did incredible harm to the nation and the profession of journalism in the process. 

Covering Biden’s presidency for four years and not realizing or reporting that he was not all there is the journalism equivalent of an NFL team going winless all season. That’s something that five teams, starting with the 1960 Dallas Cowboys, have suffered through in the post-war era, but none of them ever threw themselves a party to celebrate their abject failure. 

We all know what happened over the past four years. The liberal media decided that Biden’s team, even if the old man was upstairs watching ‘Matlock’ and complaining his soup wasn’t hot enough, was better than electing Trump.  

With absolute shamelessness and disregard for the people, these charlatans with reporter’s notebooks allowed their hatred of Donald Trump, and his supporters, to drive their coverage. Nobody should ever come back from that. 

If there is still a legitimate purpose to the WHCA, it surely would have been to stand up to the Biden administration, to demand more access and evidence. 

Instead, this gaggle of fools just nodded along like morons while former Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed actual, unedited videos were ‘cheap fakes,’ an Orwellian nonsense term, and that they shouldn’t be shown. 

Traditions are good, they are important, and the WHCA, founded in 1914, has a rich tradition. But, traditions can also become mere trappings, a fancy symbolic set of clothes that bestows an appearance of honor on those who don it, deserved or not. 

Thankfully, the Trump White House has taken measures to rein in the WHCA’s monopoly on West Wing coverage, bringing in centrist and conservative new media members, and of course, the ‘professionals,’ are having a fit. 

But while The New York Times and others might mock press room queries from figures like Natalie Winters of ‘War Room,’ or podcasters like Tim Pool, those people are already doing a thousand times better covering Trump than the gentle treatment the venerated WHCA gave Biden. 

It’s always good to be wary of industries where their members heap endless praise on each other and constantly give themselves awards. Hollywood, for instance, and that is what much of journalism has become.  

‘Look at me!’ the establishment journalists all say, ‘I have an official WHCA membership card and a lanyard! So, obviously, I’m a brave warrior for the truth!’ 

Not everything in life comes with second chances. These people covering Biden flat out blew it, and did incredible harm to the nation and the profession of journalism in the process. 

Nobody is buying it anymore. 

Look, if the WHCA wants to continue, fine, it could have fancy lunches and lecture series, maybe get matching sweaters made. But in no way, shape or form should this organization play the slightest role in how the White House actually deals with the media. 

Far better would be to put this dinosaur of the legacy media down. Journalists don’t need a club. They simply need to tell the truth.