On July 9, 2026, President Trump signed Proclamation Adjusting Imports of Commercial Aircraft, Jet Engines, and Aircraft and Engine Parts into the United States explaining that the Secretary of Commerce reported that commercial aircraft, jet engines, and associated parts are essential to US national security as they are used in defense, cargo, transportation, and tourism. However, this industry is facing challenges cause by, among other things, actions and practices of foreign countries, overreliance on foreign imports, and insufficient incentives to invest domestically. The Secretary found this is not a recent phenomena. It has been going on for decades, harming the US commercial aircraft manufacturing industry. The Secretary recommended direct discussions and negotiations with these foreign jurisdictions about this situation; but, did not recommend tariffs be imposed at this time.
This proclamation directs the Secretary of Commerce and the US Trade Representative to pursue negotiations that will lead to reduced impairment of US national security with a report due within 180 days of the date of this proclamation which will inform future remedies. The proclamation makes the following directives:
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 232, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, do hereby proclaim as follows:
The Secretary and the Trade Representative, and any senior executive branch official they deem appropriate, shall jointly pursue or continue pursuing negotiations of agreements to address the threatened impairment of the national security with respect to imports of commercial aircraft, jet engines, and their associated parts.
The Secretary and the Trade Representative, in consultation with any other senior executive branch officials they deem appropriate, shall, from time to time, update me on the status or outcome of the negotiations described in this proclamation. The Secretary and the Trade Representative shall provide one of these updates within 180 days of the date of this proclamation.
The Secretary shall continue to monitor imports of commercial aircraft, jet engines, and their associated parts. The Secretary also shall, from time to time, in consultation with any senior executive branch officials the Secretary deems appropriate, review the status of such imports with respect to the national security. The Secretary shall inform me of any circumstances that, in the Secretary’s opinion, might indicate the need for further action by the President under section 232.
Any provision of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that is inconsistent with this proclamation is superseded to the extent of such inconsistency. If any provision of this proclamation or the application of any provision of this proclamation to any individual or circumstance is held to be invalid, the remainder of this proclamation and the application of its provisions to any other individual or circumstance shall not be affected.
Lockheed Martin will work to establish a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile Sustainment Facility in Europe.
Northrop Grumman will sign Letters of Interest with 10 Nations to purchase MQ-4C Tritons, expanding NATO’s Allied Ground Surveillance program into the maritime domain.
Lockheed Martin and Rheinmetall will partner on Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) production in Europe.
RTX and the Department of War will launch their Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) feasibility Study to expand production in Europe.
Germany and the Netherlands will buy Raytheon’s Stinger missile with European production as a condition of the bulk procurement. They aim to double the Stinger production volume by 2030.
Boeing and Rheinmetall-Italy will explore a partnership opportunity to expand production and sustainment for Boeing’s Small Diameter Bomb (SDB-I) for Europe.
Anduril will commit to provide Poland with Barracuda-500 missiles, leading to a new production line in country.
The Fact Sheet notes that NATO allies can join together to form a Procurement Coalition which would lower costs, ramp up production, and close capability gaps among the participants. NATO interest in US military equipment will create a pathway for small and medium-sized US businesses to market their products to a wider range of countries showing their innovative products to a wider audience.
President Trump is still leading from an America First Foreign Policy adjusting the 'burden' of defense towards a 'greater burden sharing' and 'self-reliance' by countries in NATO. The record shows European defense spending supported 83,000 jobs from European defense firms operating within the US as well as 112,000 US defense contractor sales. President Trump wants NATO allies to purchase their supplies from the US which will reindustrialize the US defense industry while arming NATO allies with the best products in the world.
President Trump wants NATO to be independent (so he can later withdraw the US from an organization that is 1/2 the world away from us and focus on our part of the world instead?). NATO allies need to invest in their own defense - President Trump is suggesting 5% of annual GDP by 2035 (which is years down the road). While the US is technically supplying the military equipment for Ukraine, the truth of the matter is that NATO is purchasing this equipment and NATO is sending it to Ukraine to the tune of over $5 billion in purchases of US goods. NATO ordered over $54 billion of US arms in 2025 alone boosting US manufacturers, workers, and communities.
The Department of War (DoW) has returned US troop levels to pre-2022 levels (meaning there was a draw-down of troops from Europe) with the DoW working to ensure irreversible momentum toward a European-led defense of their own countries. (So, yes, it looks like we are pulling out of Europe, just not all at once.)
Rather than fill your screen with videos of President Trump's meetings with NATO, I will provide the following links to the various videos from The White House covering President Trump's public interactions while at the conference:
On July 8, 2026, the Office of the First Lady announced that Hawaii Governor Josh Green, MD, has pledged to support Fostering the Future Accounts (last discussed in my June 25, 2026 ANP Article). Governor Green is the first of Democrat Governors to support the program.
The SENATE convened on July 9, 2026 at 4pm for a pro forma session and adjourned less than 1 minute later. They held no votes. The SENATE will reconvene July 13, 2026 at 3pm.
The HOUSE convened on July 9, 2026 at 3pm and adjourned at 3:03pm. They held no votes. The HOUSE will reconvene July 13, 2026 at noon.
I sure hope both Chambers of Congress will return July 13, 2026 ready to codify the SAVE America Act that more than 80% of US Citizens want to see made law.
18 SCOTUS stays or motions to vacate of lower court orders
2 SCOTUS affirmation of lower court order
11 suits where judges ruled for the federal government
16 suits where judges ruled against the federal government
7 criminal prosecutions by the DOJ
In the lawsuit National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Russell Vought (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) docket # 25-5091 Appeal of 1:25-cv-00381 filed in Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on March 31, 2025 about CFPB Dismantling where the government appealed Judge Berman Jackson's preliminary injunction which blocks the Trump administration from taking steps to dismantle the CFPB. The government appealed Judge Berman Jackson's preliminary injunction which blocks the Trump administration from taking steps to dismantle the CFPB. This appeal was consolidated with the government's April 19th appeal of Judge Berman Jackson's order preventing the Reduction in Force announced by Russ Vought. Since I have not yet covered this lawsuit, I shall start with the original lawsuit which sought the following relief:
Declaring that Defendant Vought’s directive to the CFPB’s employees to stop their supervision and enforcement work is unlawful;
Enjoin Defendant Vought from further attempts to halt the CFPB’s supervision and enforcement work;
Ordering Defendant Vought to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
Ordering such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Plaintiffs are represented by National treasury Employees Union.
It is ORDERED that Defendants, including their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, (hereafter collectively, “Defendants”) shall not delete, destroy, remove, or impair any data or other CFPB records covered by the Federal Records Act (hereinafter “agency data”) except in accordance with the procedures described in 33 U.S.C. § 44. This means that defendants shall not delete or remove agency data from any database or information system controlled by, or stored on behalf of, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the term “agency data” includes any data or CFPB records stored on the CFPB’s premises, on physical media, on a cloud server, or otherwise.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall not terminate any CFPB employee, except for cause related to the specific employee’s performance or conduct; nor shall Defendants issue any notice of reduction-in-force to any CFPB employee.
And, it is further ORDERED that Defendants shall not: (i) transfer money from the CFPB’s reserve funds, other than to satisfy the ordinary operating obligations of the CFPB; (ii) relinquish control or ownership of the CFPB’s reserve funds, nor grant control or ownership of the CFPB’s reserve funds to any other entity; (iii) return any money from the CFPB’s reserve funds to the Federal Reserve or the Department of Treasury; or (iv) otherwise take steps to reduce the amount of money available to the CFPB below the amount available as of 4:00 pm on February 14, 2025, other than to satisfy the ordinary operating obligations of the CFPB.
Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order is hereby deemed to be a motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants must file any opposition to plaintiffs’ motion on or before February 24, 2025, and plaintiffs’ reply must be filed on or before February 27, 2025.
The Court will hold a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion on March 3, 2025 at 10:00 AM.
In sum, the Court cannot look away or the CFPB will be dissolved and dismantled completely in approximately thirty days, well before this lawsuit has come to its conclusion. For all of the reasons set forth above, the Court will GRANT [Dkt. # 10] plaintiffs’ motion and issue a preliminary injunction that maintains the agency’s existence until this case has been resolved on the merits, reinstating and preserving the agency’s contracts, work force, data, and operational capacity, and protecting and facilitating the employees’ ability to perform statutorily required activities. The Court is aware of the modifications the plaintiffs have made to their proposed order, as well as the objections lodged by the defendants to previous iterations of the proposed order, and it is mindful that its order must be sufficiently specific to be enforceable, while also broad enough to afford the agency and its leadership the discretion they are accorded under the statute when carrying out their regulatory, enforcement, and supervisory responsibilities.
Defendants, shall maintain and shall not delete, destroy, remove, or impair any data or other CFPB records covered by the Federal Records Act (hereafter “agency data”) except in accordance with the procedures described in 44 U.S.C. Chapter 33. This means that Defendants shall maintain and shall not delete, destroy, remove, or impair agency data from any database or information system controlled by, or stored on behalf of, the CFPB. The term “agency data” includes any data or CFPB records stored on the CFPB’s premises, on physical media, on a cloud server, or otherwise. The defendants must take all necessary steps to ensure that its contractors do the same.
Defendants shall reinstate all probationary and term employees terminated between February 10, 2025 and the date of this order, including but not limited to, Julia Barnard, the Private Student Loan Ombudsman.
Defendants shall not terminate any CFPB employee, except for cause related to the individual employee’s performance or conduct; and defendants shall not issue any notice of reduction-in-force to any CFPB employee.
Defendants shall not enforce the February 10, 2025 stop-work order or require employees to take administrative leave in furtherance of that order, and defendants shall not reinstitute or seek to achieve the outcome of a work stoppage, whether through a stop-work order, an order directing employees to take administrative leave, or any other means.
To ensure that employees can perform their statutorily mandated functions, the defendants must provide them with either fully-equipped office space, or permission to work remotely and laptop computers that are enabled to connect securely to the agency server through the Citrix Virtual Desktop or another similar program.
Defendants shall ensure that in accordance with 12 U.S.C. §5492(b)(3), the CFPB Office of Consumer Response continues to maintain a single, toll-free telephone number, a website, and a database for the centralized collection of consumer complaints regarding consumer financial products and services, and that it continues to monitor and respond to those complaints, including by providing Elevated Case Management.
Defendants shall rescind all notices of contract termination issued on or after February 11, 2025, and they may not reinitiate the wholesale cancellation of contracts. This provision does not prohibit the defendants from ordering that work or services under specific contracts be halted based on an individualized assessment that the contract involved is unnecessary for the agency to fulfill its statutory functions. To ensure that this Court can award full relief at the end of the case, however, the defendants may not finalize the termination of any contract.
Defendants shall file a report with the Court by April 4, 2025 confirming that all individuals and entities that fall within Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65(d)(2)(A), (B), and (C) have received actual notice of this Order, and that the defendants are in compliance with this Order.
The Court’s temporary consent order issued on February 14, 2024 [Dkt. # 19] and the March 3, 2025 Minute Order issued in light of the parties’ Notice of Agreement [Dkt. # 53] and Notice of Agreement (Corrected) [Dkt # 65], are hereby VACATED.
On March 29, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the DC Circuit Court.
ORDERED that the district court’s order filed March 28, 2025 granting appellees’ motion for preliminary injunction be administratively stayed pending further order of the court, except insofar as the order gives effect to the terms memorialized in the parties’ March 12 agreement concerning contract terminations (ECF No. 71) and the parties’ February 14 agreement concerning records, terminations, and funding (ECF No. 19). The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2024).
To the extent defendants seek a stay of the requirement in the Order that they inform the Court of their compliance with its terms by Friday, April 4, the motion is GRANTED IN PART; that obligation is hereby STAYED, with plaintiffs’ consent, see Pls.’ Mot. for Briefing Schedule [Dkt. # 92] at 2; Pls.’ Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. [Dkt. # 98] at 4–5, pending the outcome of the motion for emergency stay pending before the Court of Appeals. The rest of the motion is DENIED, but without prejudice to a motion that proposes reasonable and appropriate modifications to the preliminary injunction that preserve its day-to-day managerial discretion. The parties met and conferred in the past and agreed to terms that governed the period between the filing of plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and the ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction, and the Court encourages them to do so again.
the Reduction in Force announced by Acting Director Vought on or about April 17, 2025 is SUSPENDED and it may NOT be implemented, effectuated, or completed in any way until this Court has ruled on plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the preliminary injunction, and
the defendants are PROHIBITED from discontinuing any employee’s access to work systems, including email and internal platforms until this Court has ruled on plaintiffs’ motion.
On April 18, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to DC circuit court.
This Stipulated Protective Order covers the handling of confidential information with a specificed duration of:
Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect unless and until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: plaintiffs' motion to enforce the preliminary injunction [Dkt. # 105] is denied without prejudice as moot; the hearings set for April 29 and 30, 2025 are hereby vacated; provision (3) and all of the other provisions of the preliminary injunction that were left intact by the Circuit's Order of April 11 remain in force; the motion to compel the production of records [Dkt. # 134] will be held in abeyance until after the Court of Appeals rules on the validity of the preliminary injunction; and defendants' motion to stay proceedings pending final resolution of the appeal [Dkt. # 103] is granted insofar as the obligation to respond to the complaint is deferred. The Court will establish a schedule for further proceedings, as necessary, after the Court of Appeals has ruled.
Plaintiffs’ motion to clarify the preliminary injunction is GRANTED. The Court clarifies that the claimed “lapse” in funding, which was manufactured by the defendants based solely on the OLC Memo, is not a valid justification for the agency’s unilateral decision to abandon its obligations under the injunction. The statutory text of the DoddFrank Act governs, and it prescribes a process through which the CFPB is to request the funding it needs to carry out the mission it was assigned by Congress, and the Federal Reserve must provide that funding from its “combined earnings.” This process has unfolded seamlessly since the Bureau was established in 2011, even in the years since 2022 when the Federal Reserve’s interest expenses have exceeded its earnings. Neither the statute, the injunction, nor the Fed’s willingness to pay has changed; the only new circumstance is the administration’s determination to eliminate an agency created by Congress with the stroke of pen, even while the matter is before the Court of Appeals. It appears that defendants’ new understanding of “combined earnings” is an unsupported and transparent attempt to starve the CFPB of funding and yet another attempt to achieve the very end the Court’s injunction was put in place to prevent. This ruling therefore construes the scope of the existing Order to clarify that the defendants’ unilateral decision to decline to request funding, based on an unsupported interpretation of the Dodd-Frank Act, contravenes the preliminary injunction.
Some of the plaintiffs cannot establish jurisdiction, and the others have no viable cause of action. The plaintiffs’ claims therefore fail as a matter of law. We vacate the preliminary injunction and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Circuit Judge Pillard dissented stating:
I would therefore reject Defendants’ arguments that the district court abused its discretion in acting to preserve the status quo while litigation over their unlawful attempt to terminate the agency continues. . . . The majority does not deny that Defendants acted as the district court found. Nor do my colleagues dispute that such actions were unlawful for all the reasons that Plaintiffs have alleged. Nevertheless, they elect to shield Defendants’ illegality from any effective judicial oversight. Defendants announced and celebrated their lawless decision to reporters and the broader public. But they did not announce their decision in the pages of the Federal Register, and my colleagues take that lack of formal recordation as grounds to vacate the preliminary injunction. Doing so is an invitation to agency evasion and deception. Our constitutional and statutory responsibility to hold executive agencies to the law requires more. I respectfully dissent.
On June 5, 2026, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the DC Circuit Court.
ORDERED that the motion to modify the stay pending appeal be denied and the motion for a limited remand be granted. The court will remand the record for the district court to decide in the first instance whether to modify, suspend, or dissolve the preliminary injunction in light of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s issuance of a revised reduction-in-force plan and the other intervening developments identified in the appellants’ motion. See Mot. 2, 12–17. The appellees do not oppose a remand for that purpose, see Resp. 6–8, and the remand is limited to enabling the district court to consider only those intervening developments identified in the appellants’ motion. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the appellants’ request to impose a 45-day limit on the remand, which the appellees oppose, be denied. See Mot. 12; Resp. 7–8. The district court has moved expeditiously throughout this litigation, see Reply 11, and it is assumed that the court would continue to do so on remand. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the appellants’ unopposed motion to hold this appeal in abeyance be granted. See Mot. 18; Resp. 7. The en banc court will retain jurisdiction over this appeal. See D.C. Cir. R. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Handbook of Practice & Internal Procedures 35-36 (2025). The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the district court. The district court is requested to notify this court promptly upon deciding the issues presented by the limited remand. Absent further direction from this court, the parties are directed to file motions to govern future proceedings in this court no later than 21 days following the district court’s decision.
The Remand Order specifically called for the Court to act with expedition. In order to do so, the Court requires additional information from the parties, and it established a schedule that would enable it to comply with the Order consistent with the ongoing demands of the other matters on its docket. The parties appear to have granted themselves an extension by waiting until the materials were already due before asking for additional time, and this is not a satisfactory way to proceed; any future requests for additional time must be filed at least one business day before the date to be extended. That being said, it is always beneficial if parties can resolve matters among themselves without court intervention, and therefore, the Court will accord the parties the time they have requested to submit a status report by Thursday, July 9 that either includes the information that was due yesterday, proposes an alternative schedule, or explains why the need for that information has been obviated.
So, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an agency created by Congress and therefore must be ended by Congress. In the interim, the Executive Branch controls who works for the agency as long as the job identified by Congress is maintained. So, in my opinion (not that my opinion counts for much) firing workers who job does not align with the Congressionally stipulated mission of the agency is not only acceptable, but preferable. If they are not working on the mission Congress assigned, they need to be removed.
Also, like with TPS, TEMPORARY means just that - the job is TEMPORARY! Term employees are employed for a 'term' of x amount of days/weeks/months/years. When that time is up, the contract is over. Both of these types of employees are basically 'at will' employees to be terminated whenever the business, government, corporation determines their job is no longer necessary to the mission.
Before moving on to the battles fought after the US Declared its Independence from the tyranny of the British Crown, there are a few other precipitating events (a list of the ones I have already covered can be found in my July 7, 2026 ANP Article) that I will cover briefly here:
On April 5, 1764, the British Parliament passed the Sugar Act was officially called the American Revenue Act of 1764 or the American Duties Act. This Act was to raise revenue for the British Crown. The preamble to the Act specifically stated:
it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this Kingdom ... and ... it is just and necessary that a revenue should be raised ... for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same
The goal was for the Crown to collect recompense for the cost of their Seven Years' War (which we call the French and Indian War). Especially since once the war ended, the British Crown was obligated to maintain troops in the colonies. The debt grew to almost £130,000,000 by the beginning of 1764.
The Colonies were in a state of economic depression because the French and Indian War took a lot of of them as well with supplying food and supplies to the Crown's troops. Merchants and shippers saw this very visible tax program as the cause of the economic depression and began protests against the act. In addition, shippers and merchants were having to raise their prices to account for this additional tax while the British West Indies were exempt causing a trade imbalance (that we still seem to be dealing with but on a global basis these days which President Trump has been working to bring into balance).
The Sugar Act was repealed around the same time the Revenue Act of 1766 was created (reducing the tax to one penny per gallon on molasses imports).
In October 1768, British troops occupied Boston Massachusetts because they thought Boston was the hotbed of protest against the Crown.
On September 17, 1774, Congress endorsed the Suffolk Resolves a declaration made by leaders of Suffolk County, Massachusetts on September 9, 1774. This Resolve rejected the Massachusetts Government Act (still under the control of the Crown) and instituted a boycott of goods from Britain unless the Intolerable Acts were repealed.
We, your majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects… in parliament assembled, return your majesty our most humble thanks for having been graciously pleased to communicate to us the several papers relating to the present state of the British colonies in America… We have taken them into our most serious consideration and we find that a part of your majesty’s subjects in the province of Massachusetts Bay have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme legislature, that a rebellion at this time actually exists within the said province, and we see, with the utmost concern, that they have been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by your majesty’s other subjects in several of the other colonies, to the injury and oppression of many of their fellow subjects…
We ever have been, and always shall be, ready to pay attention and regard to any real grievances of any of your majesty’s subjects, laid before us in a dutiful and constitutional manner. [But] we humbly beseech your majesty that you will take the most effectual measures to enforce due obedience to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature; and we assure your majesty that it is our fixed resolution, at the hazard of our lives and properties, to stand by your majesty against all rebellious attempts…
On February 13, 1775, both houses of parliament petitioned the King writing:
…direct your Majesty’s governor of Massachusetts Bay to take the most effectual methods for procuring the fullest information that can be obtained touching all treasons or misprision of treason committed within this government since the 30th day of December last… together with the names of the persons who were most active in the commission of such offences… in order that your Majesty may issue a special commission for… hearing and determining the said offences within this realm…
On May 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress convened in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania first naming their new country the United Colonies of North America (later renamed to United States of America in 1776). This Congress was the acting government that raised militias, directed strategy, appointed diplomats, and wrote petitions.
On July 3, 1775, General George Washingtontook command of the army at Cambridge common outside of Boston, Massachusetts, having been appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army by the Continental Congress a mere 2 weeks before.
On July 5, 1775 Congress approved the Olive Branch Petition seeking to make peace with the Crown and avoid war. Congress signed the Petition of July 8, 1775 and sent it to the Crown. King George III refused to even read the petition.
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.
