The Trump administration on Friday defied a federal judge’s order to provide an explanation for how it intended to bring back to the United States a Maryland man who was unlawfully deported to El Salvador last month.
In an aggressive two-page filing
, Justice Department lawyers told the judge, Paula Xinis, that she had not given them enough time to figure out what they planned to do about the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, after the Supreme Court ordered the administration on Thursday to “facilitate” his return to U.S. soil.
“Defendants are unable to provide the information requested by the court on the impracticable deadline set by the court hours after the Supreme Court issued its order,” the department lawyers wrote.
“In light of the insufficient amount of time afforded to review the Supreme Court order,” the lawyers went on, “defendants are not in a position where they ‘can’ share any information requested by the court. That is the reality.”
The administration’s refusal to comply with Judge Xinis’s directives put it on a collision course with the judge and threatened to erupt into a showdown between the executive and judicial branches. The White House has had tension with judges in other cases — particularly those involving President Trump’s deportation policies — but the conflict with Judge Xinis was one of the most contentious yet.
I think this line from the response from the administration
follows the script I essentially predicted earlier today
: “Foreign affairs cannot operate on judicial timelines, in part because it involves sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review.”
None of this bodes well for rule of law, let alone for Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
The latest ridiculous lie from Democrats about how Republicans are driving the country towards fascism is out, and it is a doozy. This time, we are meant to believe that Trump and the GOP are banning married women from voting.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.
, and others took to video this week to make the nonsensical and logically tortured claim, saying, “House Republicans’ so-called ‘SAVE Act’ blocks nearly 70 million women from registering to vote—just because they changed their name after marriage.”
Here is what failed glass-ceiling breaker Hillary Clinton
had to say: “The House just passed the Republican voter suppression measure that threatens voting access for millions of Americans, including 69 million women whose married names don’t match their birth certificates.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act requires prrof of citizenship to cast a vote in federal elections. Among the acceptable documents for demonstrating proof of citizenship are: A REAL ID-compliant driver’s license, a valid U.S. passport, and a military ID.
You would think the driver’s license requirement would be simple enough, but then again, blue-state Democrats screwed that up when they insisted on giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants whose supporting documents could not be verified. Now, the rest of us have to get extra verification for our driver’s licenses so they can be distinguished from the ones handed out like candy to illegal aliens.
So now, Democrats are seriously suggesting that married women in our country are all but incapable of obtaining verified identification and therefore will be disenfranchised by Republicans, presumably while they twist their handlebar mustaches and kick some puppies.
I’d like to ask Rep. Swalwell, if married women are incapable of getting IDs such as a driver’s license, then why is there an almost endless line of them in cars in front of me at the school pick-up line?
Furthermore, I am given to understand that married women quite regularly travel abroad. If they can’t get a passport, then how is this happening? Are their husbands bribing border officials?
If, in fact, there is some intractable issue preventing married women from getting ID, then we should fix it. But given that nobody had ever heard of this “major problem” until Republicans brought up a voter ID law, it is, well, suspicious.
This is especially true, given that up to 80% of Americans support showing valid ID to vote, yet instead of honoring the will of the people, the left, once again, goes charging towards facile identity politics.
You have to hand it to the Democrats. When they latch onto a message, they immediately start yelling it in unison with all the subtlety of a sky-writing competition, like last month, when they all started cursing like Andrew Dice Clay one day.
As cosmically stupid and demonstrably false as it is, this claim that married women will be disparately impacted, or uniquely disadvantaged by the voter ID law is par for a very dangerous course that the Democrats run over and over.
According to the Democrats, we can’t have safer streets because minorities or the poor will be arrested more often, we can’t protect women in sports because that violates trans rights and now we can’t secure the vote because married women don’t know how to get IDs.
This is all “disparate impact ad absurdum.” if there is one non-white, non-straight, non-cis person in America who faces a negative consequence from legislation, then the whole thing has to be tanked.
Meanwhile, Democrats push policies like student debt relief that clearly disadvantages Americans who never went to college, but in this case somehow the discrimination is enlightened.
The final nail in the coffin of this insane notion that the GOP wants to disenfranchise everyone with “Mrs.” in front of her name, or in Democrats opinion, his or her name, is that married women lean Republican in their voting.
In fact, recent polling has shown that with full voter participation, the Republicans and Trump would have won by even more in 2024, so why on earth would the GOP want to leave those votes on the table?
Ultimately, what the Democrats have here is a reality problem. As Swalwell pointed out, there are approximately 70 million married women in the United States who may have taken their spouse’s last name, which means there are 70 million Americans who know damn well how easily they can obtain valid ID.
So get out there and vote, married ladies. There is literally nothing stopping you.
Basketball Hall of Famer Isiah Thomas took exception to LeBron James
shooting shirtless before the Los Angeles Lakers took on the Houston Rockets on Friday night.
Thomas, an analyst for NBA TV, took issue with James’ alleged lack of professionalism as he warmed up.
“I just totally 100% object to this,” Thomas said. “If I were the GM or coach, I would never let one of my players walk out on the floor looking like this. I mean, we’re a professional NBA league. We ain’t summer league. We ain’t at the YMCA.”
Thomas agreed with Steve Smith when he said he thought the NBA should go back to making players wear suits.
“I just think the professionalism in our NBA
league has diminished so much,” he continued. “Look, I like LeBron, I’m a fan of his so forth and so on. But to walk out on the floor before a game with no shirt on and shoot – I mean come on man. Where we at? What we doing?
“Adam Silver, if you want to fine somebody, fine that. Put a fine on that.”
James appeared to respond to Thomas’ comment in a post on X after the Lakers
won the game, 140-109.
“Man I was going to say something but it’s useless at this point in my career! Anyways more important CONGRATULATIONS JJ on a 50 win season in the WEST & Post Season nod!” he wrote.
James had 14 points, eight assists and four rebounds.
The Roman General Broke One Law and Was Met With War. The U.S. President Is Breaking Laws Left and Right—Without Major Resistance
By Michele Renee Salzman
Commentators love to compare Donald Trump’s norm-breaking ways to Julius Caesar’s momentous decision to “cross the Rubicon” in 49 B.C.E. By leading his troops over the Rubicon River and into Italy to stand for election in Rome, Caesar defied Roman law. The outrage that followed set the stage for the civil wars that led to the demise of the Roman Republic and the birth of the Roman Empire. The Rubicon comparison appeals to pundits because it recognizes the destructive impact of a populist leader who willingly breaks the law to gain power.
But the analogy ultimately falls short because Trump’s actions are more far-reaching than Caesar’s—and because they have met less resistance.
When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, his goal was specific and limited. Caesar had no desire to remake the republic nor to destroy the way Roman politics worked. He simply wanted to bring his army with him to run for election for consul, the highest executive position in the state—a position voted on yearly, and one he had served before, in 59 B.C.E. Since then, Caesar’s military feats, daring exploits, and unparalleled leadership of his legions in Gaul (now modern France), which he advertised in his Commentaries, had made him tremendously popular in Rome and very wealthy. Now, he was ready to return to Rome, triumphantly.
According to the law, he had to give up his command and disband his troops before entering Rome. This requirement was a legacy of earlier civil wars that had unfolded in the 80s B.C.E., when the popular generals Marius and Sulla marched on Rome to force the senate to grant them military commands. But Caesar’s troops, who worshipped him, were a crucial source of his strength. Without them at his side, the senate was likely to bring him up on charges for his misuse of funds and for his undertaking military actions in Gaul without senatorial permission. In such a scenario, he could have been exiled for his success.
So, Caesar found supporters in Rome: the 10 elected representatives of the people known as Tribunes of the Plebs. They put forth a law to allow him to run for office without giving up his command. Most senators opposed this request, believing such a compromise would undermine the state and greatly empower Caesar.
They were right. After Caesar learned that the Tribunes had failed, he tried once more to negotiate, offering to put down his arms if the senate took away command from the current consul, Pompey. The senate refused and declared Caesar a public enemy. They asked Pompey—a former commander himself—to raise an army to defend the state. Only then did Caesar cross the Rubicon River, entering Italy near Ravenna on January 10, 49 B.C.E. Caesar’s men followed their general, even if it meant civil war against their fellow citizens. Some may have believed Caesar’s claim that he was defending not just his honor, as the Roman biographer Suetonius tells us, but that of the tribunes and people of Rome, freeing the republic from the tyranny of the senate. But he also knew what was coming: “The die is cast,” he is alleged to have said, as he crossed the Rubicon.
The battles that embroiled the Mediterranean world for the next five years pitted Caesar and his troops against the remnants of Roman republican forces in Greece, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, and Italy.
But when he returned to Rome, first in 48 B.C.E., he had the senate name him dictator, a position that traditionally endowed temporary emergency powers. He initiated a stunning number of rapid reforms designed to “fix” the state. (Some were needed, like setting a calendar of 365 days, the same one we use today.) Ultimately, Caesar achieved victory. The senate—or at least those who survived and were granted clemency or who were newly appointed—honored Caesar in February 44 B.C.E. with a new title, dictator perpetuus or “dictator forever,” an unprecedented power. A month later, 60 senators joined in a plot to kill Caesar, stabbing him to death on the Ides of March.
Once Caesar was dead, the senate reconvened. They believed they could simply return the republic to what it had been before, but a new round of civil wars followed, ending with the emergence of Rome’s first emperor, Caesar’s great-nephew Octavian, who took the name Augustus, “Revered One.” With Augustus’ ascendance, the republic died, even as Augustus claimed to have restored it. But for historians, Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon, more than 20 years earlier, was the critical turning point.
Both Caesar and Trump were populists who spoke and behaved brashly, upending established norms and steering their followers in radically new directions. Politicians and citizens alike viewed both men as acting illegally to bring their respective, powerful republics to crisis. Caesar’s actions launched 500 years of imperial rule in the west. Trump’s actions, many argue, will herald an end to the post-World War II international order, and threaten American futures at home.
But in crucial ways, the situations are not the same—and it has as much to do with Trump as it does with his opponents in Congress and the courts. Trump has crossed the Rubicon without any attempts to negotiate with the U.S. legislature—and we don’t yet see any sustained, effective opposition to his illegal actions in the Senate or House of Representatives. In 44 B.C.E, the Roman Senate acted to uphold the law—and as a result, the senate continued to play a key role in reshaping the government of Rome in future centuries. Emperors worked with senators, relying on them to govern provinces and administer the state.
Trump’s use of executive orders is aimed at undermining the role of the Congress in government. And Congressional opposition is disorganized, internally divided, and virtually leaderless. A closer analog to the Roman Senate might be the U.S. courts, though it is not yet clear that Trump will abide by judicial decisions, nor that the courts will uphold pre-existing limits on presidential power.
Unlike Caesar’s limited goals in 49 B.C.E, Trump desires to bring widespread change to our republic—overturning everything from decades of foreign policy and lawfully constituted federal agencies to medical research, education, and the law.
To effectively preserve our republic, collective action and protest must be louder and more organized. It may not be too late for the U.S. Congress—and all of us—to stand up for the fundamentals of our democracy, the rights of federal workers and migrants, and the health of people at home and abroad. Roman senators—Pompey, Cato, Brutus, and Cassius—were willing to stand up to Caesar’s autocracy. But only future historians looking back will be able to determine if elected officials and people who actively oppose Trump today will be more successful in preserving our republic.
Michele Renee Salzman is a historian at the University of California, Riverside, and the author, most recently, of The ‘Falls’ of Rome: Crises, Resilience and Resurgence in Late Antiquity. This was written for Zócalo Public Square.
One month from today I’m flying to France to join a World War II tour, and I suspect that some curious European will ask me to explain or defend you know what. I’ll simply say, “J’ai honte de mons pays,” which means “I am ashamed of my country.”
The reasons are too numerous to mention, but three numbers top the list: 63 million (the voters who flocked to Trump in 2016), 74 million (his tally in 2020, albeit in a losing cause), and 77 million in 2024. Only in America can an evil imbecile fail upwards, propelled by an ascending tally of balloters, despite repeated promises to destroy this nation from within and sabotage its global standing.
Some people – like CNBC’s Jim Cramer (“I feel like a sucker”) – seem to be stunned by Trump’s newly-announced tariffs on all imports. By the inevitably instant stock market plummet and the immediate deleterious impact on our savings, nest eggs, 401(k)s, and rainy-day cookie jars. By the imminent prospect of price hikes on everything from cars to clothes to coffee, courtesy of retaliating countries that once were our allies.
It’s safe to bet that even some MAGA voters will dimly recall Trump vowed during the 2024 race to reduce inflation, not stoke it with wanton abandon.
But here’s my response to anyone who’s inexplicably shocked: What did you expect?
Trump openly campaigned on a promise to destroy our leadership position in the world, both militarily (by weakening NATO) and economically (by launching a global trade war). As far back as 2018, during his first term, he fought with Canada and reportedly told his aides, “I want tariffs! Bring me tariffs!” He road-tested his plan by slapping hefty levies on Canadian steel and aluminum, prompting denunciations from commie organizations like the National Retail Federation and The Wall Street Journal.
He doubled down on his obsession during the 2024 campaign when he said publicly that “to me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff. It’s my favorite word.” At another event he said, “Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented.” He dreamed of implementing tariffs in the range of “100, 200, 2000 percent.” When The Journal and the nonpartisan Peterson Institute of International Economics warned that he was nuts – a Peterson report said that his “package of policies does more damage to the U.S. economy than to any other in the world” – he attacked the people with credentials, claiming that “I’ve always been very good at mathematics.”
J. V. Last, a political analyst at The Bulwark (an anti-Trump outlet founded by Republicans), said only three reasons can explain why a fatal share of American voters elected this guy despite his open vows of economic destruction: (1) “They wanted what he promised,” and/or (2) “They didn’t believe what he promised” and/or (3) “They didn’t understand what he promised.”
I’ll add a fourth possible reason: They didn’t bother to listen to what he promised. His mouth moved, that was good enough.
As Trump himself declared in 2016, “I love the poorly educated.” He bonds with his peeps because he’s one of them. In a column last fall I wondered, “Are there enough poorly-educated voters to once again coronate the sultan of stupid?”
Now we know.
I kinda liked the economy Joe Biden bequeathed us, the one that senior Moody’s analyst Mark Zandi called “rip-roaring…among the best economies in my 35-plus years as an economist.” But hey, that’s just me. I can’t fathom being stupid enough to entrust the economy to a guy who went bankrupt running cash-cow casinos.
The question, going forward, is whether we’re irrevocably doomed. Fortunately, there are some signs of life – green shoots, as it were. The Bernie Sanders-AOC road show is drawing sizable crowds. Chris Murphy, the Connecticut senator, is relentlessly vocal. House Republican toadies are under attack at their own town halls. Furious citizens are in the streets. And this week Cory Booker put his body on the line for 25 hours, hoping to light what he called “thousands of ignition points” for rightly pissed-off Americans.
“How much more will we take of this?” Booker asked.
If there is sufficient will to thwart the authoritarians and restore a semblance of sanity, perhaps the words of Frederick Douglass (as quoted by Booker) can inspire the energized:
“The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Copyright 2025 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Dick Polman, a veteran national political columnist based in Philadelphia and a Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, writes the Subject to Change newsletter. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com
Your kitchen isn’t complete without a cutting board – or two, or three. They’re not just useful tools, they’re integral to safe and efficient food preparation. Depending on what you are using it for, you often need multiple sizes and various materials, including wood, bamboo and plastic.
Cutting boards can serve many purposes, from helping to keep food safe from cross-contamination to boosting kitchen
productivity and doubling as decorative items. Plus, a cutting board makes a practical gift for new homeowners, newlyweds, anniversaries or simply anyone who enjoys cooking meals
in the kitchen. If you’re ready to plop down some cash on a new cutting board (or two), there is a wide selection of cutting boards to consider. Here are 10 standout options.
Hiware’s extra-large bamboo cutting board
can meet all your needs, whether you’re chopping, slicing or using it as a charcuterie tray. The surface is polished to be extremely flat and smooth and the resilience of the eco-friendly bamboo means it won’t cause any damage — like cracks or dullness — to your knife blades. It’s also large enough to prep a big meal and has a border around the edges to catch any expelled liquid or juice and prevent messes. If you want one large enough to carve a roast or a turkey without spilling any juice, consider this Greener Chef version,
which is also designed to rest on your cooktop range to save precious cabinet and counter space.
When it’s time to chop up vegetables for dinner or prep your meals for the week, you don’t want to leave deep cuts on your countertop. These HOMWE cutting boards
are a heavy-duty, BPA-free plastic set that gives you more cutting versatility and efficiency that’s cleaner, safer, and better for daily food prep. A juice groove catches sticky liquids and a non-slip handle keeps it contained to your countertop. Speaking of, these nifty disposable cutting board liners
will give you a little extra insurance that you won’t deal with slipping during use.
A personalized cutting board makes a great gift or a display piece in your home. This one by Naked Wood Works
at Amazon allows you to fully customize it — from the inscription to the size to the wood type — at an affordable price. You can even purchase a stand to go with it. A personalized paddle-style cutting board
is also a nice accent piece that stands on its own, turning a basic kitchen necessity into a work of art.
Sometimes simple is better, especially when it’s at this price point. This KitchenAid rubberwood cutting board
is made from high-quality, durable wood and offers a sturdy and knife-friendly surface for cutting, chopping and slicing. Its natural wood finish not only enhances its aesthetic appeal but also makes it gentle on knife edges, extending the life of your blades. The practical trench feature catches excess liquids and prevents messes, while its thick, sturdy construction ensures stability during use. While wood is practical and cost-effective, it requires maintenance to keep it from cracking. Enter this Howard Cutting Board Cleaner,
which keeps the wood supple and conditioned.
The OXO carving and cutting board
is made from high-quality, non-porous materials that resist stains, odors and deep knife grooves, ensuring long-lasting performance. Its double-sided design allows for versatile use, with one side featuring juice grooves to catch liquids and prevent spills. The board has non-slip edges and feet to keep it securely in place during food preparation, enhancing safety and ease of use. Lightweight yet sturdy, the OXO cutting board is easy to clean and maintain as it can even be put in the dishwasher! While Amazon has this board
for the same price, you can take advantage of free Prime shipping if you’re a member. You can also try this KitchenAid cutting board
, which is a few dollars less and offers a similar style.
If elevated basics are what you’re looking for, elevated is what you’ll get, with this teak cutting board
at Sur La Table. Crafted from premium and sustainable teak wood, it provides a reliable, knife-friendly surface for chopping, slicing and dicing. If that price tag gives you sticker shock, you might also consider this teak paddle-style board
at Walmart, roughly half the price.
Available at Walmart, this Farberware bamboo 3-piece set
provides an eco-friendly and stylish option for your kitchen. The set includes three sizes, offering flexibility for tasks like slicing vegetables or carving meats. Bamboo is naturally resistant to bacteria and gentle on knife edges, helping to maintain your blades’ sharpness. The boards are lightweight yet sturdy, making them easy to handle and store. With their sleek, natural finish, these cutting boards double as attractive serving platters for cheese or charcuterie. And while these boards shouldn’t harm your knives, you might want to invest in a knife sharpener
to keep your knives from getting dull and putting grooves into your boards!
This Gorilla Grip oversized cutting board set
is made from thick, BPA-free plastic and designed to withstand heavy use without warping or cracking. It features three boards of different sizes, each with deep grooves to prevent spills, a textured surface for added grip and rubber edges to keep the board securely in place. The oversized design provides ample space for preparing significant cuts of meat or multiple ingredients at once. If you prefer square instead, check out this set
, which is around the same price and has all the same features but in a different shape.
The Joseph Joseph cut and carve
is an innovative option with an angled surface to catch and drain liquids, making it ideal for carving meats or slicing juicy fruits. Its non-slip feet and raised “meat grip” provide stability and help keep food in place while cutting. Lightweight yet durable, the board is easy to clean and dishwasher-safe, making it a practical addition to any kitchen. Also practical and unique is a stainless steel option,
which prevents cross contamination between meat and veggies.
If you can’t decide between durable plastic and classic bamboo, get both with this Mainstays two-piece set.
The set includes two boards to accommodate a variety of tasks, from chopping vegetables to preparing proteins. With its budget-friendly price, this set is perfect for beginners or those looking to stock their kitchen with versatile tools. While at it, pick up a new chef’s knife
at Walmart that’ll accommodate all your cutting and chopping needs.
The University of Wisconsin system and several state agencies failed to specifically track spending on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, Wisconsin’s
Legislative Audit Bureau (WLAB) recently revealed.
The audits covered FY 2023-2024. As a result of this lack of tracking, WLAB, a state government agency, was forced to estimate what the institutions spent on these programs.
WLAB stated in its audit of University of Wisconsin institutions that it estimates the system spent $12.5 million on salaries for employees with job titles relating to DEI. Additionally, WLAB estimated the university spent $40.2 million “on offices with duties pertaining to diversity, equity, and inclusion.” However, WLAB clarified that not all of those funds were specifically dedicated to DEI.
The university was already set to scale back its DEI efforts after it made a deal with Republican legislators in 2023 to limit DEI-related positions. When the deal was struck, the university had 123 full-time positions to DEI. Auditors found that the number had dropped to 110 by May 2024 and now sits at 60.
In January, the university removed its chief diversity officer, LaVar Charleston, due to a “significant lapse in judgment and fiscal responsibility,” Fox 6
, a local affiliate, reported. While Charleston was removed from his DEI position, he remains a member of the university’s faculty.
In its audits of state agencies, WLAB found that 12 agencies spent about $2.2 million on salaries for 47 positions pertaining to DEI. WLAB also estimates 23 agencies spent approximately $705,300 on salary costs for “time spent attending diversity, equity, and inclusion training required by Executive Order 59 or DOA in 2023.”
A challenge WLAB noted in its reports was that both the agencies and the university had overlapping costs, making it difficult to calculate exactly what was spent on DEI programs.
WLAB also found that agencies failed to consistently report to the Department of Administration (DOA) efforts to correct noncompliance. However, simultaneously, the DOA did not consistently require the agencies to take action on such issues. Additionally, WLAB found that “most agencies” did not submit to DOA all annual required progress reports pertaining to DEI from 2021 to 2023.
The audits were ordered by state Republicans who launched a comprehensive review of spending on equity programs in May 2024, according to The Associated Press
. This follows comments made by Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos in late 2023 in which he vowed to end DEI initiatives. The move aligns with efforts by the Trump administration to get DEI out of all facets of American life, including higher education.
