Commentary Culture Investigations

While New York and California are losing population, states like South Carolina and Alabama are not only gaining residents at a record rate, but they are also experiencing rapid economic growth.
A recent JL Partners poll captures a shift in perception:  36 percent of Americans now expect the South to lead economic growth over the next decade — far ahead of the West Coast (23 percent), Northeast (21 percent), and Midwest (19 percent).
This is quite a transformation.  For as long as anyone can remember, the South seemed to be a byword for backwardness.
Since the late 19th century, American commerce and industry have centered on the traditional business hubs of New York, Chicago, and California. Each successive wave of innovation — automobile manufacturing and aerospace, chemicals and consumer goods, financial services and digital startups — seemed to happen outside the South.
Starting in the 1980s, an initial wave of ‘Sun Belt’ states, like Texas, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, began to prosper.  But what you might call the ‘core’ southern states, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and South Carolina, remain resolutely stuck in the slow lane. Until now.
Over the past decade, economic growth in the South has exceeded the national average, and in states like Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and South Carolina, significantly so. Real GDP in 2024 rose 4.2 percent in Mississippi and South Carolina, 3.8 percent in Alabama and Arkansas, and 3.0 percent in Tennessee, surpassing the national rate of 2.8 percent.
Manufacturing jobs might have disappeared in the Rust Belt, but many of those jobs went South, not to China. U.S. industrial output has roughly doubled since the Reagan era, and much of that expansion happened in states like Alabama, which has added over 50,000 auto jobs since 2000, while Michigan lost them.
Combined, Alabama and Mississippi now produce more vehicles annually than Italy or the United Kingdom.
The South is not just a manufacturing powerhouse — it’s rapidly emerging as a major financial service center. Think “Y’all Street” rather than Wall Street. Cities like Charlotte, Dallas, Miami, and even Nashville have become financial hubs in ways that once seemed unimaginable. This shift is so pronounced that JPMorgan Chase now employs more people in Texas (around 31,000) than in New York.
So strong has southern growth been that between 2020 and 2024, 78 percent of all U.S. jobs added to the economy have been located in the South. (RELATED: Go South, Young Man, Go South)
The population of the South has increased by seven million since 2020.
If anything, this shift in population to the South seems to be accelerating. According to the 2026 HireAHelper Moving Migration Report, for every 10,000 residents, in 2025, South Carolina gained 79 more people, Tennessee 47, Alabama 36, and Mississippi 18. New York, by contrast, lost 28, California lost 25, and Washington state lost 10.
Even as America’s college-age population shrinks due to lower birth rates, Southeastern Conference (SEC) universities are bucking the trend with rising applications, especially from out-of-state Northeastern students. Between 2014 and 2023, SEC schools saw a 91 percent surge in undergraduates from out of state. These students aren’t just chasing sunshine and football; many seek a campus culture that is the antithesis of northeastern or West Coast woke.
Southern states are not just more friendly. They are business-friendly.
Unsurprisingly, the JL Partners survey found young graduates particularly bullish on the South’s prospects, with nearly four in 10 naming it the region most likely to grow fastest in the coming decade.
What explains this southern success? Southern states are not just more friendly. They are business-friendly.
Taxes tend to be lower. Some southern states have no income tax (such as Texas, Florida, and Tennessee) or, like Mississippi and South Carolina, are on the road to income tax elimination. State income taxes are higher elsewhere, with Washington state, for example, about to introduce an income tax for the first time.
Southern states tend to have less red tape. South Carolina recently repealed a lot of the so-called Certificate of Need red tape that held back the healthcare economy. Contrast that to California, now one of the most stringent regulatory environments in the U.S., with onerous compliance requirements of companies, for example, on climate disclosure and environmental standards.
Southern states have more flexible labor laws, and most are right-to-work states, meaning workers cannot be required to join unions. Southern states, like Mississippi, have begun to remove restrictive occupational licensing rules, too, making it easier for people to find work.
The South has significantly lower electricity costs on average, largely because the South never really took the Biden era inducements to take up renewable energy. Ironically, given that the Sun Belt is where the sunshine is, the South avoids prescriptive renewable mandates while making practical use of solar power. In contrast, the Northeast and California have stringent renewable mandates and face higher prices as a consequence.
The secret of America’s success is having 50 different states trying out different policy solutions side by side. The southern states seem to have found a winning formula.
Douglas Carswell is the President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.  He was previously a Member of the British Parliament.
READ MORE:
Go South, Young Man, Go South
Blue States Losing Out on Foreign Investment
What Migration Patterns Within the U.S. Tell Us About Policy

The Bachelor and the Bachelorette have always been gross displays of people involved in numerous romantic relationships at the same time. The drama of the final episode is cruel: The “lead” is supposed to dump one romantic partner and propose marriage to the final remaining suitor. In the episode prior, three or four remaining romantic partners are invited to spend the night with the “lead” in an essential competition. Afterwards, one person gets dumped and is filmed for TV sobbing in shame and disappointment.
Perhaps the show has contributed to the rising popularity of polyamory, deemed “ethical nonmonogamy,” in which people feel at liberty to carry on multiple romantic relationships. This is despite the fact that the tears, jealousy, and drama of the show — as well as the fact that almost all of the couples break up — would seem to instead send the message that all of this is a terrible idea and plain wrong. Yet the show has largely been able to avoid being labeled as a display of polyamory because of its claimed aim at arriving at a marriage between two people.
The latest eligible bachelorette the show had selected, however, had a history of being happy to engage in sexual relationships with multiple people at the same time. Before Taylor Frankie Paul got a divorce, she and her husband had engaged in what she termed a “soft swinging” lifestyle, in which sexual activity outside of the marriage was celebrated, so long as the other spouse was present. After the divorce, she explained, “We played with fire, and we got burned.” Apparently, she had broken the rules of their arrangement after she “caught feelings” for another man. She said, “We had an agreement, like all of us, and I did step out of that agreement.” Paul added, “No one was innocent. Everyone has hooked up with everyone in this situation.”
Paul’s decision to take on the moniker of a Mormon “swinger” on her TikTok account, and the drama surrounding how that “swinging” destroyed her marriage, rocketed her to fame and fortune. It set her up to be the perfect person for ABC to feature on the Bachelorette. She was, after all, already famous for stepping outside of monogamy. The fact that she had three children with two different men only prepared her more to take on the show’s premise of dating 30 different men at the same time. Cementing her as the perfect person for the role was her decision to seemingly sleep with her ex-boyfriend the night before flying out to film the show. Given, however, that the Bachelor and Bachelorette have tried to position themselves as matchmaking forums for America’s most elite bachelors and bachelorettes, Paul’s prior marriage, “swinging,” and cheating served to make her controversial even given the show’s premise of polyamory.
The only problem for Disney and ABC was that Paul had been charged in 2023 with aggravated assault, domestic violence in the presence of a child, child abuse, and criminal mischief. Police had accused her in no uncertain terms of throwing heavy metal chairs at her boyfriend and, in so doing, hitting her 5-year-old daughter in the head with a metal chair, thus giving her a “goose-egg.” She entered a plea in abeyance to aggravated assault, allowing her to tell suitors on her show that her charges had been dropped.
ABC only canceled her season of the Bachelorette last week after the horrific video of this incident leaked. The company cited the video as the reason for the decision. It was not as though the circumstances of this assault were unknown, however. The police report recounted in full detail exactly what happened in that video. In fact, the video was used as evidence to charge her.
Three years ago, the Herriman City Police Department explained publicly that the cellphone video of Paul assaulting her boyfriend showed her throwing metal chairs from her kitchen island at him. The first chair hit her boyfriend on his “arm and hand.” At this point, police recounted that Paul’s boyfriend warned her that her daughter was right there. She then, according to the police account, taunted him and threw a second and third chair in his direction, the latter of which hit her 5-year-old daughter in the head. Unsurprisingly, the video verifies the police account.
Police also documented the fact that Paul’s boyfriend was left with a “minor laceration” on his neck, scratches on his fingers, and swelling around his eyes. The boyfriend reportedly told police that his elbow had “protracted pain.”
The reason for the fight? Paul wanted to go to a concert, but her boyfriend believed she was too drunk to go.
ABC read all of this in the police report, saw her plea, and yet still selected Paul to headline the Bachelorette. That is, they knew she was a domestic violence offender and decided to give her hundreds of thousands of dollars to star in their production anyway. Apparently, for Disney, having the qualification of being a “Mormon swinger” outweighed a domestic violence criminal record.
Taylor Frankie Paul, putting aside her abuse, would have broken the illusion that the Bachelor and Bachelorette are anything other than a gross exercise of polyamory. But, with her domestic violence, she shows ABC and Disney for what they are: companies that don’t care about child abuse or domestic abuse, companies that will elevate a woman guilty of assaulting her boyfriend — all because she’s famous for cheating on her husband.
Shockingly, or not so shockingly, Paul has been accused since filming wrapped of assaulting her ex-boyfriend on two additional occasions, and investigations are ongoing. But Disney knew exactly who they were getting, and they signed up for all of this.
READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes:
Gavin Newsom’s Extremely Odd Wife
Ghislaine Maxwell and Bill Clinton’s ‘Close’ Relationship: They ‘Got Along Terribly Well’
Colleges Are Becoming Abortion Clinics

What do you get when you combine Big Tech, a Bill Clinton fixer, Davos, the architect of the Hunter Biden laptop disinfo, and “Artificial Intelligence”? The biggest heist in world history. A forced income transfer worth trillions of dollars, siphoned from the public, headed to a small sliver of the 1 percent.
There is nothing “artificial” about Artificial Intelligence. The frontier AI models — think ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini — that underpin the explosion of AI products are built (“trained”) on very real intellectual property created and owned by millions of people and businesses not employed or compensated by the AI industry. Their work has been “scraped” from the internet by automated programs that go website to website, copying, without permission or payment, all the content on each site. (RELATED: The Peril and Promise of AI)
This material is housed in powerful data centers, which then regurgitate bits and pieces of people’s cleverness, wisdom, creativity, ingenuity, and other content they wrote that enables them to feed their families. Revenue collected from this reassembly of copyrighted works is then kept by the AI companies. (RELATED: Who’s Teaching Those AI Machines Your Kids Will Learn From?)
Let’s be clear: without “training” on other people’s property, there are no trillions of dollars in future revenue driving the astronomical valuations of AI companies.
Let’s be clear: without “training” on other people’s property, there are no trillions of dollars in future revenue driving the astronomical valuations of AI companies. In its written submission last year regarding the Trump administration’s AI Action Plan, Google readily conceded that this scraping “and text-and-data mining … have been critical to enabling AI systems to learn.”
The new Gold Rush is on, and global elites gathered in Davos in January to hash it all out. They were there at the invitation of the World Economic Forum, host of the annual Swiss Alps confab at which tech plutocrats, politicians, financiers, and their cheerleaders gather together to divvy up the world’s wealth. (RELATED: Dear Globalists, AI Won’t Defeat Christianity)
As a reporter covering the event noted, “the conference seemed transformed from past years, with tech companies … taking over the main promenade, while important topics like climate change failed to draw crowds.” (That may be the biggest accomplishment AI has yet made for society.)
That the AI elite would gather in Davos is particularly appropriate, as the entire ethos behind the AI heist — naked greed — was encapsulated by an infamous, unintentionally dystopian video released by the World Economic Forum in 2016, “8 predictions for the world in 2030.” Number One: “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.”
They didn’t say “We’ll” own nothing. They said, “You’ll” own nothing. Why will you own nothing? Because they will own everything.
AI leaders contend that every bit of their theft is legal. The magical thinking that powers this is a simple phrase from copyright law, misused in a way that would make George Orwell blush: “fair use.”
Many will remember the quaint practice of teachers who made Xerox copies of book excerpts they then handed out to students, copies that were claimed to be a “fair use” because the teacher’s purpose was educational and she copied only a small portion of each book.
“Fair use” by schoolmarms has since been hijacked by profit-driven corporate behemoths, led by Big Tech, using other people’s creations to make the infringers rich. As AI Progress, a trade association of the AI industry, bluntly defends its mass scraping practices: “Fair use allows the use of copyrighted material without permission or payment.”
That is, unless you purloin their intellectual property. AI darling OpenAI recently complained to Congress of an AI competitor’s “ongoing efforts to free-ride on the capabilities developed by OpenAI and other U.S. frontier labs.” Google urges the administration to “oppose mandated disclosures that … allow competitors to duplicate products.”
Appropriating everything everyone else has created is “fair use,” we are told, because it is “transformative,” in which case the pickpockets allegedly get to keep the loot. The key to this alchemy is that the corporate wrongdoing be galactic in scope.
When 1990 rap phenom Vanilla Ice scraped a single (iconic) baseline for Ice Ice Baby from Queen and David Bowie in his song Under Pressure, his copyright infringement cost him millions (though without the theft, he would have made nothing).
Turns out Mr. Ice didn’t steal enough.
Google didn’t make that mistake when they began excerpting key paragraphs from virtually all newspaper articles — which they insisted was “fair use” — and published them on its website. As Google’s own AI now admits, “the U.S. newspaper industry has lost over 270,000 jobs — a decline of more than 75 percent” since Google’s 2004 IPO. And Google’s co-founders are now among the richest people on the planet.
This time, the AI industry is looking beyond ink-stained wretches. It wants to take everyone’s jobs. Yet we’re told AI mass content appropriation occurs “without significantly impacting rightsholders” and lets AI companies avoid pesky “negotiations with data holders.” (The looter walking off with a television during a riot can relate: who wants to be bothered negotiating with product owners?) (RELATED: The AI Employment Apocalypse Is Only a Few Years Away)
Blue-collar America hollowed out, these same people are now coming after American white-collar jobs.
One of the most aggressive voices leading this brazen campaign is a front group funded with dark money and tens of millions of dollars from Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta called American Edge. Their angle is that China will “win” if U.S.-based AI billionaires are forced to pay for using other people’s property. The group is run by a former Democrat party political operative. Its Advisory Boards include at least four former members of Congress who voted to invite China into the WTO, which President Trump has noted led to the closure of 60,000 U.S. factories.
Blue-collar America hollowed out, these same people are now coming after American white-collar jobs.
Another Advisory Board member is none other than Michael Morell, who directed the 2020 campaign interference falsely suggesting Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation. The author of this disinformation is now advising American Edge on how to message AI’s intellectual property theft.
(ChatGPT owner OpenAI, meanwhile, hired Bill Clinton capo and fixer Chris Lehane to bully communities to accept gargantuan data centers and lawmakers and judges to greenlight AI’s IP theft.)
American Edge calls on lawmakers to ignore “restrictive copyright theories” that would require owners to be compensated for the use of their property. The authors of those “theories” were merely the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. They delegated to Congress an enumerated power in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
With all due respect to Mr. Zuckerberg, we’ll stick with the Framers when it comes to understanding property rights.
It would be absurd for “fair use,” a judge-invented doctrine later codified by Congress, to subvert the very purpose Congress was granted this enumerated right in the Constitution.
To return to the school example, former theater kids will remember when their lines were learned from officially licensed, and paid for, scripts and scores published by the copyright owners — the people who created the work (or purchased the rights to it from those who had).
If a high school drama club wants to put on “Hamilton,” it must obtain consent from and compensate the play’s authors. The musical’s subject, a staunch advocate of the Constitution, would have demanded the same of the AI industry.
The writer holds degrees from Yale University and the NYU School of Law, where he was an Associate Editor of the Law Review. His only high school theater work was on the stage crew of The Threepenny Opera, a tale of greed and hypocrisy. He is on X at @mikeparanzino.

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s lawsuit is the latest in a series of state legal actions against one of the world’s largest crypto ATM operators.

By his own admission, Andrew Garfield believes watching Harry Potter movies harms transsexuals … and went ahead and did it anyway!
The post Nolte: ‘Spider-man’ Star Andrew Garfield Believes Watching ‘Harry Potter’ Harms Trans People … Watched It Anyway appeared first on Breitbart.

FCC Chief Brendan Carr on Friday celebrated one year of his “Delete, Delete, Delete” move to scrap 338 pages from the code of federal regulations.
The post FCC Chief Brendan Carr Celebrates One Year of ‘Delete, Delete, Delete’ with 38 Pages of FCC Regulations Scrapped appeared first on Breitbart.

Politico published a cartoon on Friday featuring anti-Semitic imagery in an attempt to criticize the war in Iran. The image depicts President Donald Trump, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Republican members of Congress wearing blood-covered Jewish prayer shawls and yarmulkes.
The cartoon, drawn by former New York Post cartoonist Sean Delonas, depicts the lawmakers aboard a rowboat labeled “Ship of Neocons”—a play on the Hieronymus Bosch painting Ship of Fools—that is about to plummet over a waterfall. A bag of blood-smeared money crowns the mast, and the word “Amalek,” a reference to a historical enemy of the Jewish people from the Hebrew Bible, appears in the background.

Netanyahu, depicted with an exaggerated nose, is also shown wearing a blood-covered Jewish prayer shawl and eating from a table covered in blood, while Trump, also in a Jewish prayer shawl, is drawn underneath the word “Amalek.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who is not Jewish, is depicted wearing a yarmulke and a Jewish prayer shawl and holding a bottle of blood. Graham and Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), also drawn in a blood-covered Jewish prayer shawl, have supported the Iran war and are longtime supporters of Israel.
The cartoon plays on classic anti-Semitic tropes about Jews covertly controlling events, in this case the decision to launch the war in Iran, and using financial exploitation to do so. The exaggeration of Netanyahu’s nose in a grotesque, caricatured style plays on age-old efforts to dehumanize Jews.
The drawing was published as part of Politico’s “Cartoon Carousel,” which Politico describes as a round-up of the “best” political cartoons of the week.
A spokeswoman for Politico did not respond to a request for comment. Delonas declined to comment, saying he “charge[s] $500 for a 1/2 hour interview and $750 for a full hour.”
Politico is owned by the German publishing company Axel Springer, which acquired the Arlington, Va.-based company for $1 billion in 2021. The New York Times reported at the time that Politico employees would be exempted from signing Axel Springer’s mission statement, which includes support for Israel and the trans-Atlantic alliance. Axel Springer’s corporate values include the statement “We support the right of existence of the State of Israel and oppose all forms of antisemitism.”
In that context, Politico’s overwhelmingly negative coverage of Israel has attracted attention in recent years, including in 2024, when it published a cartoon suggesting that Israel was exploiting centuries of discrimination—including the Holocaust—to carry out the war in Gaza. An Axel Springer board member, Martin Varsavsky, also publicly rebuked the publication last year.

Delonas was a cartoonist for the Post for over two decades. He drew national controversy in 2009 for his cartoon depicting two police officers shooting a chimpanzee under the caption “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”
Although the cartoon came out shortly after the highly publicized police shooting of a chimpanzee who mauled a woman, critics claimed that the drawing was actually a racially charged reference to then-president Barack Obama.
The post Politico Publishes Cartoon Depicting Trump, Republicans Wearing Blood-Covered Jewish Prayer Shawls, Yarmulkes Amid Bags of Money appeared first on .

PBS News Hour co-host Geoff Bennett turned up on The Jim Acosta Show to promote his new book on black comedy titled Black Out Loud. Bennett and Acosta were both White House reporters in Trump’s first term. After talking all about The Cosby Show and In Living Color, Acosta felt compelled to gush over PBS to a rather overenthusiastic degree. 

After Acosta discussed his amazing experience as a subject on the PBS genealogy show Finding Your Roots, he praised the entire enterprise: 

Jim @Acosta gushes to PBS host Geoff Bennett: “There’s so many quality programs on PBS. I tell people all the time, if I could wave a magic wand, I would send BILLIONS of dollars to public broadcasting.”
That tells you who PBS pleases, and who PBS serves. pic.twitter.com/35hUb6aaE5
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) March 27, 2026

ACOSTA: And there’s so many — Frontline — there’s so many quality programs on PBS. I tell people all the time, if I could wave a magic wand, I would send billions of dollars to public broadcasting.

BENNETT: [laughs]: Yeah. And I gotta say, it’s really heartening to see the ways in which our viewers have stepped up post defunding. And the philanthropy is terrific, but really, it’s the individual viewers who are standing in the gap and, deeply appreciate it.

Shortly before this financial fantasy, Acosta cued up the first tribute, that PBS is how you can “fix the news.” Oh, the fix the news, all right: 

Jim @Acosta tells PBS’s Geoff Bennett that when people ask how to “fix the news,” he promotes PBS. Oh, they “fix the news” all right. The rig it just the way that the Left wants it. Bennett brags they draw 2 million viewers a night, more than cable news. Fox News laughs. pic.twitter.com/3dp6HdyuIg
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) March 27, 2026

ACOSTA: I have to put you on the spot a little bit because I have to ask you, you’re the anchor of the PBS News Hour, and I’m going to embarrass you a little bit and say what a huge fan I am of the program

BENNETT: Thank you.

ACOSTA: You and Amna [Nawaz] just do terrific work, and I also want to promote the PBS News Hour. I go out and do these speaking engagements from time to time, and people ask me, how would you fix the news? How would you fix broadcasting? And I tell people all the time, in addition to independent media and the importance of independent media, I think public broadcasting is so important in this country, and it’s not valued enough, and as a matter of fact, it’s been defunded, and I don’t want to drag you into all that.

But your thoughts on why you’re proud to be at the PBS News Hour and to be a part of public broadcast, because I wish it would be said much more often. So I’m going to put you on the spot and make you do it.

BENNETT: First of all, thank you for the kind words about the broadcast. As you know, it is a team effort, and I view my role as being a steward of that institution. For more than 50 years, people have tuned or turned to the PBS News Hour for coverage they can trust, they know that we have a fidelity to the facts, and we are really intentional about the stories we cover, about the voices we elevate.

Our editorial meeting, sometimes it’s longer than the broadcast itself in the mornings. It’s not always the most efficient way to get a broadcast on the air, but it really speaks to the level of intention and care we bring to the broadcast. And I would also say that the news hour sometimes people have this perception of it being this deeply respected but little watched program. We have two million viewers every night, which is four or five times what you have on cable in prime time, on most nights, and 30 million across our digital footprint.

This is where the “fact checking” should kick in. If the News Hour drew exactly 2.0 million viewers every night, a look at the February cable-news ratings would show it would come behind 12 Fox News programs and Rachel Maddow’s Monday show. Bennett’s show might outshine CNN and most of MS NOW, but not typically by four or five times.

A judge described by President Donald Trump as “wacky, nasty, crooked, and totally out of control” has, for once, sided with the administration in a deportation case.

On Wednesday, District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg ruled that a liberal group’s lawsuit to vacate a 2025 U.S. agreement with El Salvador, under which the Central American country agrees to take back illegal aliens convicted of crimes in the U.S., lacked standing.

“This Court is all too familiar with the Government’s hasty deportation of immigrants to El Salvador, though only through the lens of individual removals,” Boasberg, who is known for repeatedly ruling against Trump in high-profile cases, acknowledges in his Wednesday opinion.

But, in this case, the issue isn’t so much about the removal of illegal aliens as it is about whether or not the U.S. can enter into agreements with other countries, Boasberg writes:

“The present suit arrives from a different vantage point, training its sights not on those removals but on the diplomatic instrument that preceded and allegedly enabled them.”

….

“Defendants ultimately prevail on the threshold question of standing. Even assuming the Agreement helped set in motion the events Plaintiffs describe, it does not itself carry independent legal force, and vacating it would not likely prevent the conduct that produces their injuries. The Court will therefore grant the Motion to Dismiss.”

In August, a federal appeals court voted 2-1 Friday to throw out Judge Boasberg’s contempt finding against Trump regarding his court order that the Trump Administration turn airplanes around and return illegal aliens on their way to El Salvador back to the U.S.

The Obama-appointed judge, one of a number of activist, rogue judges that House Republicans are working to impeach, had ruled that the Trump Administration did not have the authority to deport more than two hundred illegal alien gang members and ordered the planes carrying the gang members to turn around and bring them back to the U.S.

Earlier this month, in a TruthSocial.com post, Pres. Trump called Boasberg a “wacky, nasty, crooked, and totally out of control” judge who shouldn’t be allowed to involved in any future cases regarding the president and his administration.

“In case after case, Boasberg has displayed open, flagrant, and extreme partisan bias and contempt against Republicans and the Trump Administration,” the president claimed, after Boasberg ruled that the administration’s subpoenas of the Federal Reserve Board were meant to harass and pressure Fed Chair Jerome Powell.