The term “Border facilities” as used in this permit consists of the bridge over the Rio Grande, its approaches, and any land, structures, installations, or equipment appurtenant thereto located on the United States side of the international boundary between the United States and Mexico, approximately 8 river miles from the Brownville and Matamoros International Bridge and 35.6 river miles from the existing Free Trade Bridge at Los Indios.
Like President Trump's other actions in this category (see June 21, 2025 and June 25, 2025 ANP Articles) the Permit is subject to conditions:
Is subject to this Permit and any subsequent Presidential modifications.
Standards are subject to inspection by Federal, State, & Local Government with unrestricted access.
Compliance with Federal laws & regulations.
Permittee will follow EPA guidelines to mitigate adverse impact or disruption on the environment. Permittee is responsible for claimed or adjudged liability and responsible for any required Federal, State, and/or Local permits.
Permittee is required to notify the President (or his designee) of intent to transfer custody or control out of Permittee's hands.
Permittee is responsible for maintaining "authority to build" and for acquiring and maintaining any right-of-way grants or easements, permits, or other authorizations that may become necessary or appropriate.
Agencies who interact with Permittee are not required to provide a particular level of service or staffing for inspection facilities or any other aspect of the port of entry associated with the Border facilities. (So no onsite inspector residing on premises or provided by any government agency).
Permittee is required to provide plans before permit activities commence.
Permittee is required to gain permit of US International Boundary and Water Commission, US and Mexico.
Department of State must provide authorization to initiate construction before any construction can begin. (And this might take a while since they have to confer with the government of Mexico.)
When asked, Permittee must respond to the President (or designee) on all requests for information concerning current conditions, environmental compliance, mitigation, or anticipated changes in ownership or control, construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of the Border facilities.
Permittee must file reports required by applicable Federal law in connection with Border Facilities.
Once approved, Permittee must submit change requests to the President (or designee) BEFORE implementing changes. Permittee also understands the President may terminate, revoke, or amend this permit at any time. If, for any reason, the Pedestrian Bridge is closed, the permit terminates.
The permit will expire 5 years from the date of issuance if construction has not started. (And, of course, we know the date of issuance is determined by the date the Federal Register gets around to publishing it.)
The permit does not create any right or benefit to the Permittee on the part of the US Government.
The EU intends to eliminate tariffs on all U.S. industrial goods and to provide preferential market access for a wide range of U.S. seafood and agricultural goods, including tree nuts, dairy products, fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, processed foods, planting seeds, soybean oil, and pork and bison meat and extends the lobster agreement to include processed lobster.
The US commits to apply the higher of either the U.S. Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariff rate or a tariff rate of 15 percent, comprised of the MFN tariff and a reciprocal tariff, on originating goods of the European Union. In addition, the US commits to apply only the MFN tariff to the following products of the European Union: unavailable natural resources (including cork), all aircraft and aircraft parts, generic pharmaceuticals and their ingredients and chemical precursors.
The US agrees that the combined tariff rate does not exceed 15%. When the EU passes the necessary legislation to enact key term #1, the automotive tariffs will be adjusted accordingly.
The EU & US will ensure the 'rules of origin' accrue appropriately.
The EU & US will ensure secure, reliable, and diversified energy supplies. The EU will procure US liquified natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy products. The EU also signals its intention to purchase $40,000,000,000 of AI chips. The EU also agrees to adopt and maintain tech security requirements in a concerted effort to avoid tech leakage. The US will assist in this effort.
The EU will substantially increase military and defense equipment procurement from the US and the US will provide support and facilitation.
The EU & US will work together to reduce or eliminate non-tariff barriers, especially with respect to autos.
The EU & US will commit to work together to address non-tariff barriers affecting trade in food and agricultural products, to include streamlining requirements for sanitary certificates on pork and dairy products.
The EU & US recognize deforestation as an issue due to the EU Deforestation Regulation and its impact on EU-US trade.
The EU will work to provide flexibility in its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in addition to the agreed up0on increase of the de minimis exception.
The EU will undertake efforts to ensure that the corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) do not pose undue restrictions of transatlantic trade.
The EU reaffirms that US conformity assessment bodies can be designated as Notified Bodies to carryout out the tasks in relation to all essential requirements.
The EU & US commit to strengthen cooperation and action where access to critical mineral and other similar resources by third countries are concerned.
The EU & US will discuss high-standard commitments related to intellectual property rights protection and enforcement.
The EU & US will work together to ensure strong protection of internationally recognized labor rights.
The US & EU will address unjustified digital trade barriers. The EU confirmed it will not adopt or maintain network usage fees and will not impose customs duties on electronic transmissions.
The EU will consult with the US on digitalization of trade procedures and implementation of the legislation currently proposed on EU Customs Reform.
The US & EU agree to strengthen economic security to enhance supply chain resilience and innovation. This includes addressing non-market practices, unfair competition, and lack of reciprocity in public procurement with respect to third countries.
The announcement ends with the statement:
The United States and the European Union, in line with their relevant internal procedures, will promptly document the Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade to implement this Framework Agreement.
The White House posted a short video on how the Trump Administration is cleaning up DC and making America safe again featuring VP JD Vance. He says in 9 days there was an over 35% reduction in violent crime, over 50% reduction in robberies, so DC is already safer than it was 9 days ago; but they will continue to make it even safer.
But here's the rub: until their laws change that allow criminals back out on the streets with little to no consequences, when the NG leaves DC, crime will flow right back in and probably be even worse, since the remaining residents will be "punished" by the criminal actors for allowing the criminals to be run off. Just look at what is happening in the same apartment complex that was taken over by gangs a few years ago and were run off. Those gangs are back and are even worse now.
14 SCOTUS stays or motions to vacate of lower court orders
1 SCOTUS affirmation of lower court order
8 suits where judges ruled for the federal government
23 suits where judges ruled against the federal government
On August 18, 2025, the class was certified in part in the lawsuit Does 1-26 v. Musk docket # 8:25-cv-00462 filed February 13, 2025 in District court D, Maryland about USAID Dismantling.
The lawsuit seeks the following relief: 1) Declare Defendants Musk and DOGE, as currently operating, to be acting in violation of the United States Constitution; 2) Declare unlawful and set aside any actions taken under the color of law by Defendant Musk, his subordinates, Defendant DOGE, and any person working on behalf of or at the direction of DOGE or its team or staff; and 3) Enjoin Defendant Musk and his DOGE subordinates from performing their significant and wide-ranging duties unless and until Defendant Musk is properly appointed pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.
The Memorandum Opinion by Judge Theodore D. Chaung written August 18, 2025 states there is precedent for a class action claim by defendants; however, pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B), only the following issues can be decided on a classwide basis:
1) Whether Musk made the initial decision to dismantle USAID; 2) Whether the decision to dismantle USAID is an exercise of significant authority that only a duly appointed Officer of the US can take under the Appointments Clause; 3) Whether Musk acted as the de facto Administrator of DOGE during the Class Period; and 4) If Musk acted as the de facto Administrator of DOGE, whether that position is a continuing one for the purposes of the Appointment6s Clause.
Judge Chung goes on to state that the following issues are to be decided on a classwide basis as to the Separation of Powers claim:
1) Whether Defendants' stated plan to "retire USAID's independent operation," Lewin Me. at 3, along with its related actions including but not limited to the closure of USAID headquarters, the RIFs and terminations of USAID personnel and PSCs, and the decommissioning of USAID assets, have collectively eliminated USAID as an independent agency; and 2) Whether such elimination of USAID as an independent agency violates the constitutional principle of the Separation of Powers under the framework set forth in Justice Robert Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952).
The Order, itself, refers to the Memorandum Opinion (above) and orders the plaintiffs motion granted in part and denied in part. It also identifies who can be part of the class action claim as:
All persons who, between January 27, 2025 through the present (the "Class Period"), worked at any time for USAID as an employee or personal services contractor and was either a US citizen or was working in the US. Specifically excluded from this class are Defendants or any other person who, during the Class Period, acted as Administrator or Deputy Administrator of USAID.
So every US citizen who worked for USAID after January 27, 2025, can join this class action lawsuit. At least they will be able to dismiss multiple lawsuits after SCOTUS acts on the whole "dismantling of USAID" issue.
There are currently 8 "dismantling USAID" cases in democratic state courts:
American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump 1:25-cv-00352
AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State ; Global Health Council v. President Trump 1:25-cv-00400; 1:25-cv-00402
Personal Services Contractor Association v. Trump 1:25-cv-00469
AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State 25-5046
American Oversight v. USAID 1:25-cv-00719
AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State 25-5098
Doe 1-5 v. United States 1:25-cv-00947
AFGE v. Trump 25-5290
On August 20, 2025, the stay was denied in the USAID Dismantling Appeal of 1:25-cv-00400 and 1:25-cv-00402 appeal lawsuit filed AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State docket # 25-5098 in on April 2, 2025 in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
But the Department of State has taken the whole "dismantling USAID" issue to SCOTUS in Dept. of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition et. al SCOTUS docket # 24A831 but the case is not included on the October 2025 Term cases (discussed in my August 6, 2025 ANP Article). Should SCOTUS rule on this issue, all the other lawsuits regarding the Dismantling of USAID will become moot. So let's hope SCOTUS does the right thing (and, of course, if they do, it will most likely be with a ruling of 6:3).
In every human Breast, God has implanted a Principle, which we call Love of Freedom; it is impatient of Oppression, and pants for Deliverance.
Today's Patriot is Phillis Wheatley who was born around 1753 in West Africa (which is now either Gambia or Senegal). Her local chief sold her to a visiting trader. She was transported on the slave ship Phillis to Massachusetts Bay Province on July 11, 1761 (making her about 8 years old). She was purchased by a wealthy merchant as a slave for his wife, Susanna. They named her Phillis after the ship that brought her to the US and gave her their last name of Wheatley.
Phillis' literary activities were fully supported by the entire Wheatley family. They often had Phillis recite her poetry to friends and family. In 1773, Phillis accompanied Mr. Wheatley to see doctors in London (she suffered from asthma) with the idea that they could get her poetry published in London (as opposed to attempting publication in the colonies). They were correct. Selina Hastings, Countess of Huntingdon subsidized the publication (appearing summer 1773 titled Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral available for free in various electronic formats through Project Gutenberg) although Selina and Phillis never met due to Selina's ongoing illness. While Phillis met Frederick Bull, Lord Mayor of London, she had to return to Boston before the her scheduled meeting with King George III could occur.
After the publication of her book, the Wheatleys "manumitted" her. At the time, this was the only process to officially 'free' a person from slavery. Shortly after, Susanna Wheatley died in 1774 and Mr. Wheatley in 1778.
In 1778, Phillis met and married John Peters shortly after Mr. Wheatley died. It is said they had 3 children; but it is doubtful that any survived to adulthood. John Peters was an impoverished free black grocer. Few records are available as to her life between 1778 and 1784 when she died. Even though she continued to write, getting paid for her works was infrequent and certainly not enough to raise the family out of poverty. At the end of her life, she was working as a maid in a local boardinghouse.
Wikipedia states that a number of black literary scholars have critiqued Phillis' writing as having a lack of "black enslaved person" perspective. They assume that Phillis did not have the "awareness of her condition of enslavement" thus blocking her from being a beacon to other enslaved people. Others say that she incorporated anti-slavery statements in her work within the confines set for her by society.
Phillis died of a respiratory illness (most likely pneumonia) on December 5, 1784 in Massachusetts. It is most likely interred in an unmarked grave in Copp's Hill Burying Ground due to the family's impoverished status. She is recognized as the first African American woman and the 3rd American woman to publish a book of poems. A statue of her is included in the Boston Women's Memorial on Commonwealth Avenue Mall.
I would venture to say that the "people who bought her" at the tender young age of 8 did not actually see her as a slave either since they took the time to provide her with an education that included more than just reading and writing. In fact, Phillis received a greater education than was available to most Colonial females at the time. They taught her Latin and Greek and encouraged her to succeed. The problem with looking back to the past is a lack of understanding. We project our current thoughts, feelings, and ideas to create our version of 'what happened back then' assuming a great many untrue things in order to frame the past in a way we can understand and that meets our own ideas of what we want the past to say/prove.
Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
