The release reminds us that EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT voted against the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) (index to my series of articles covering every section of the OBBB can be found in my August 2, 2025 ANP Article). This means Democrats voted against no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, and enhanced child tax credits in addition to everything else the bill contained. I hope everyone remembers this in November when you vote to decide who will represent you in Congress for the next 2 years.
On July 3, 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio unveiled the new commemorative US Patriot Passport. The first change is that when you apply for a passport from now on, it will be mailed to you in a special box. Inside the box is a letter of authenticity along with the passport. The passport has new features. First, when you flip through the pages the images will perform in a 'flip-book' style as you fan through the pages. Future issues of the passport will include a QR code for each image. Another change is that when you apply online, you will also be able to submit a digital picture with the digital application (will be rolled out later).
Starting July 6, 2026, you can make an appointment at the Washington Passport Agency. There are a limited number of these passports available, so if you want one, make your appointment now. You will be required to appear in person at 600 19th Street NW, 1st Floor Sidewalk Level, Washington, DC 20006.
On July 4, 2026, Trump Accounts (discussed in my July 16, 2025 ANP Article) went live. People can now set up Trump Accounts for their children.
Section 1 - Purpose and Policy - To undo the previous administration's misrepresentation of our Nation's history within the Smithsonian Institute and within the Department of Interior. It is the policy of my Administration to restore Federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums, to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing. Museums in our Nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn—not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.
Section 2 - Saving Our Smithsonian - directs the Vice President, in his role as a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents,
to remove improper ideology and recommend any additional actions necessary to fully implement such policies;
to work with Congress on future appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution;
to prohibit spending taxpayer funding on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy;
to celebrate the achievements of women in the American Women's History Museum and remove all forms of recognition for 'men-who-pretend-to-be-women' from the Museum;
Section 3 - Restoring Independence Hall - directs the Secretary of the Interior to restore Independence National Historical Park by July 4, 2026.
Section 4 - Restoring Truth in American History - directs the Secretary of the Interior to
identify changes to public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties within his jurisdiction since January 1, 2020 as well as to determine which changes create a false reconstruction of American history; inappropriately minimize the value of historical events or figures; or include any other improper partisan ideology;
if changes are found, the Secretary is directed to reinstate the pre-existing state of said public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties within his jurisdiction; and to
take action ensuring these public monuments, memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties within his jurisdiction do not contain descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living (including persons living in colonial times), and instead focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people or, with respect to natural features, the beauty, abundance, and grandeur of the American landscape.
The accompanying Fact Sheet President Donald J Trump Restores Truth and Sanity to American History explains that truth in our Nation's history needs to be restored as well as national memorials, statues, markers, or similar properties are to be restored to their pre-January 1, 2010 condition with restorations completed by July 4, 2026. One purpose of this EO is to combat corrosive ideology (such as identifying men as women in the Woman's History Museum), 'white supremacy', and 'oppressive' narratives that have been slowly replacing true American history for the purposes of diminishing American achievement, creating strife and division, and fostering the impression that there is nothing great about America and its achievements. One of President Trump's goals as he took office for the 2nd time in January 2021, was to Make America Great Again through restoring what made America Great (like the Reflecting Pool, the various waterfalls around DC, cleaning up crime in DC, and repairing the vandalism perpetuated upon our National Monuments). President Trump's goal with this EO is to ensure that American history is celebrated accurately, fairly, and with pride honoring the remarkable progress, liberty, and ingenuity that define our great Nation.
On July 4, 2026, the White House released the report Saving America’s Story (the 162 page pdf report can be downloaded here) as part of the fulfillment of the directives of EO 14253 (described above) concerning the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History (NMAH). The report is authored by the Domestic Policy Council which finds that NMAH fails in the basic task of illuminating our heritage. The report finds that Museum leadership has explicitly adopted an ideological framework that no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit, and discourage our citizens.
The report notes that Anthea Hartig has been NMAH's director since 2019. She has explicitly stated that history is a tool of social justice and she sees her directorship as connecting research and scholarship to activism and advocacy. Her goal is to reframe the traditional celebratory narrative of US history while planning to problematize the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The months-long investigation found materials intended to undermine faith in America and the longstanding shared ideals of the American people. The authors write:
As this report shows, the Museum purposely presents America as a problematic country irredeemably conceived, founded by deeply flawed men, and still operating today as an instrument of systemic racism and oppression. In the Museum’s current telling, the country is, above all, defined by white supremacy, slavery, conquest, exclusion, hierarchy, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and systemic injustice. The report identifies a broad pattern: the Founders are minimized, if not entirely excluded; traditional patriotic narratives are treated with suspicion, if not outright contempt; and the basic symbols and stories that once helped unify Americans are presented not as reasons for gratitude and inspiration, but as objects to be inherently questioned, dismantled, “problematized,”17 and reinterpreted to achieve ideological ends. To the extent that there is a story told at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, it is not one of “the victory of freedom and genius of our country” but one of regret, tragedy, and shame.
The report found 5 key findings where NMAH:
Fails to Substantively Present America’s Founders and Founding
Has “Problematized” the 250th Anniversary of America’s Founding
Removed “American History” from Its Mission Statement to “Get Out of the ‘America First’ Mentality”
Has Abandoned Historical Scholarship for Political Activism
Activist “Interpretive Plan”
Anti-White Activism
Illegal Alien Activism
Transgender Activism
Smithsonian Has Not Met Its Obligations to the American People
The report concludes that:
. . . the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Museum of American History in particular, under its current leadership and current interpretive ideology, cannot be trusted to tell America’s story honestly and in a way that is inspiring, unifying, and worthy of our great republic. By the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, NMAH has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.
It is well worth the time to read the entire 162 page report. The people in charge at NMAH need to be fired and replaced with individuals who will respect the true history of our Nation without partisanship or ideology infecting it!
On July 5, 2026, the White House published the Presidential Message on the Anniversary of the United States Secret Service celebrating the 161st anniversary of the Secret Service (last discussed as a proclamation in my July 3, 2025 ANP Article). This year, President Trump recognizes that the United States Secret Service Agents are professionals who have proven themselves Worthy of Trust and Confidence as they perform their duties with selflessness and little fanfare. President Trump writes:
This year, we are especially thankful for the tremendous role the Secret Service is playing as our Nation celebrates 250 glorious years of American Independence. From the Great American State Fair to the Salute to America Rally on the National Mall, our agents are working tirelessly to ensure the success and safety of the grandest, greatest, and biggest birthday celebration in the history of the world.
Today, we honor the valiant members of the United States Secret Service for their steadfast service and commitment to freedom, peace, and the rule of law. Their heroism and countless sacrifices in defense of our beloved Nation and sacred Constitution will continue to inspire generations of Americans. So long as such patriots stand watch, the flame of American freedom will never be extinguished, and our Republic will endure stronger, prouder, and freer than ever before.
On July 3, 2026, Second Lady Usha Vance joined President Trump in the Oval Office for Storytime with the Second Lady where he read the book Presidents Play! by Jonathan Pinka.
The SENATE convened on June 29, 2026 at 12:30pm for a pro forma session and adjourned less than 1 minute later. They held no votes.
The SENATE convened on July 2, 2026 at 12:30pm for a pro forma session and adjourned less than 1 minute later. They held no votes.
The SENATE will reconvene July 6, 2026 at 9am for another pro forma session. They will continue to do this every few days until July 13, 2026.
The HOUSE convened on July 2, 2026 at 9am and adjourned at 9:02am in a pro forma session. They held no votes.
The HOUSE will reconvene July 6, 2026 at 10:30am.
So now both chambers of Congress are on yet another vacation instead of doing the work We The People want to see happen (like the SAVE America Act, and President Trump's other EOs). Remember this come November when it is time to vote!
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
This next set of lawsuit updates are about President Trump's election EOs:
In the lawsuit League of Women Voters v. Department of Homeland Security docket # 1:25-cv-03501 (discussed in my November 19, 2025 ANP Article) filed in District Court, District of Columbia on September 30, 2025 about Personal Information Database where the League of Women Voters and Electronic Privacy Information Center sued the Trump administration over a proposal to consolidate American's sensitive personal information into one centralized database in the Department of Homeland Security.
REMEDY: The APA mandates that a “reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is in excess of statutory authority, contrary to law, unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious, or procedurally defective. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(D) (emphasis added). Setting aside an agency action means “re-establish[ing] the status quo absent the unlawful agency action.” Las Ams. Immigrant Advoc. Ctr. v. U.S. DHS, 783 F. Supp. 3d 200, 233 (D.D.C. 2025) (citation omitted); see also Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 22-cv-3588, 2023 WL 5161741, at *7 (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2023) (“The remedy of vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act restores the prior regulatory status quo; the invalid rule is eliminated and replaced by any preexisting rule it had superseded.” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, the Court sets aside and vacates the 2025 DHS and SSA SORNs as unlawful. Notice of a Modified System of Records, 90 Fed. Reg. 48,948 (DHS AR 114–21); Notice of a Modified System of Records, 90 Fed. Reg. 50,879 (SSA AR 205–11). The Court further sets asides and vacates the SAVE “modified system” described in the 2025 DHS SORN. Notice of a Modified System of Records, 90 Fed. Reg. at 48,948 (DHS AR 114–21).
CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 66, and denies the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (or in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment), ECF No. 77, and the State of Texas’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 97.
For the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 111, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 66, and denies the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (or in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment), ECF No. 77, and the State of Texas’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 97. The Court vacates and sets aside the October 2025 Department of Homeland Security Notice of a Modified System of Records for the SAVE system of records. Notice of a Modified System of Records, 90 Fed. Reg. 48,948 (October 31, 2025) (DHS AR 114–21). The Court vacates and sets aside the November 2025 Social Security Administration Notice of a Modified System of Records for the Master Files of Social Security Number Holders and Social Security Number Applications. Notice of a Modified System of Records, 90 Fed. Reg. 50,879 (November 12, 2025) (SSA AR 205–11). The Court further vacates and sets aside the SAVE “modified system” described in the October 2025 Department of Homeland Security Notice of a Modified System of Records for the SAVE system of records. Notice of a Modified System of Records, 90 Fed. Reg at 48,948 (October 31, 2025) (DHS AR 114–21). The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to terminate this case from the active docket.
On June 29, 2026,USCA Case Number 26-5243for 113 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FRANK BISIGNANO, KRISTI L. NOEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. (mg)
This is just another example of a non-native activist judge overruling the President of the United States as he exercises his Constitutional Duties enumerated in the US Constitution.
In the lawsuit California v. Trump docket # 25-1726 1:26-cv-11581 (discussed in my April 10, 2026 ANP Article) filed in District Court, D. Massachusetts on April 3, 2025 about Election Integrity Executive Order where a coalition of states sued the Trump administration over the new executive order titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," which purports to exert federal control over election administration and limit mail-in ballots. On June 25, 2026 Summary Judgement Granted for Plaintiffs
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall grant the motion for preliminary injunction as sought as to §§ 2(a), 3(d), 2(d),20 7(b) of the Executive Order and § 7(a) of the Executive Order as to civil or criminal enforcement actions.
None of the States shall be required to post an injunction bond or any other security as a condition of obtaining the injunction described in this Memorandum or the accompanying Order.
Nothing in this Memorandum or the accompanying Order shall prevent the Executive Branch from taking any lawful action that is not based upon §§ 2(a), 2(d), 3(d), 7(a) or 7(b) of the Executive Order as described herein and in the accompanying Order. An Order of preliminary injunction shall be entered today in accordance with this Memorandum.
Pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the reasons explained by the Court in its Memorandum and Order, D. 107 (entered June 13, 2025), the Court finds that Plaintiff States are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims in their motion for preliminary injunction, D. 75, that Section 2(a), Section 2(d), Section 3(d), Section 7(a), and Section 7(b) of Executive Order No. 14248 are unlawful and unconstitutional; that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent the preliminary injunctive relief granted herein; that the balance of equities and public interest favor granting this injunctive relief; and, a bond is not warranted here.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ALLOWS Plaintiff States’ motion for preliminary injunction, D. 75, and Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, and employees, other than the President, are enjoined from:
implementing Section 2(a) of the Executive Order that mandates that the EAC require documentary proof of citizenship in the federal voter registration form and that the States record information concerning such documentary proof;
implementing Section 3(d) of the Executive Order that requires Defendant Secretary of Defense to update the federal postcard application to require documentary proof of citizenship and proof of eligibility to vote in a particular State;
implementing Section 2(d) that requires the head of each federal voter registration executive department or agency to assess citizenship prior to providing the federal voter registration form to enrollees of public assistance programs;
implementing civil or criminal enforcement actions pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Executive Order as to the Ballot Receipt States (Plaintiffs California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island); and
implementing Section 7(b) of the Executive Order, which conditions any available funding from the EAC to the States on the adoption of a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day, against the Ballot Receipt States (Plaintiffs California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island).
This Order shall remain in effect unless and until modified by the Court.
. . . the Court hereby ALLOWS Plaintiff States’ motion for preliminary injunction, D. 75, and Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, and employees, other than the President, are enjoined [no change from above order]
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ALLOWS in part the Executive Branch’s motion for summary judgment as to Wisconsin’s claims, the non-Ballot Receipt States’ claims against § 7(a) and the non-Ballot Receipt States’ challenge to § 7(b) in Count VII and DENIES same as to the remaining claims, D. 166, and DENIES the States’ motion for partial summary judgment as to Wisconsin’s claims and the non-Ballot Receipt States’ challenges to §§ 7(a) and 7(b) in Count VII, and ALLOWS same in part as to the remaining States’ claims against §§ 2(a), 3(d) and 4(a) and the Ballot Receipt States’ claims against §§ 7(a) and 7(b), D. 167; D. 186.
The Court DECLARES that §§ 2(a), 3(d), 4(a), 7(a) and 7(b) of the Executive Order are unconstitutional and void because they are ultra vires and violate the separation of powers under the United States Constitution;
The Court DECLARES that § 2(a) of the Executive Order is inconsistent with the NVRA, and that § 3(d) of the Executive Order is inconsistent with UOCAVA;
The Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants, except President Trump, from taking any action to implement or enforce § 2(a) of the Executive Order or otherwise taking any steps to require documentary proof of citizenship as part of the federal mail-in voter registration form provided for in 52 U.S.C. § 20508;
The Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants, except President Trump, from taking any action to implement or enforce § 3(d) of the Executive Order or otherwise taking any steps to alter the federal post card form provided for in 52 U.S.C. § 20301(b)(2) to require either documentary proof of citizenship or proof of eligibility to vote in elections in the State in which the voter is attempting to vote;
The Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants, except President Trump, from implementing or enforcing § 7(a) of the Executive Order against the Ballot Receipt States or otherwise taking any actions to enforce a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day against the Ballot Receipt States;
The Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants, except President Trump, from implementing or enforcing § 7(b) of the Executive Order against the Ballot Receipt States or otherwise conditioning formula grant funding (including election security grants) to the Ballot Receipt States on their adoption of a ballot receipt deadline of Election Day; and
The Court PERMANTLY ENJOINS Defendants, except President Trump, from implementing or enforcing § 4(a) of the Executive Order against the Plaintiff States, except Wisconsin, or otherwise conditioning formula grant funding (including election security grants) to the Plaintiff States, except Wisconsin, on their adoption of a documentary proof of citizenship requirement provided for under § 2(a) of the Executive Order.
Nothing in this Memorandum and Order shall prevent the Executive Branch from taking any lawful action that is not based upon §§ 2(a), 3(d), 4(a), 7(a) or 7(b) of the Executive Order as described herein. As per footnote 14, the parties have until July 10, 2026 to indicate the States’ intent as to the non-Ballot Receipt States’ challenge to §7(b) in Count VI, whether the parties seek entry of final judgment at that time or propose some other course in these proceedings.
For good cause and based on the parties’ joint stipulation, the Court orders as follows:
The Plaintiff States’ arguments as to Sections 3(d)(ii) and 4(a) of Executive Order No. 14248 in their opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion (D. 181 at 2-5, 16-19) and in their oral argument presented to this Court on February 26, 2026 are hereby deemed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff States’ claims challenging those provisions. The arguments as to those Sections in Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (D. 166 at 10-11, 20-24) and Defendants’ arguments presented on the record to this Court on February 26, 2026 are hereby deemed an opposition to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)’s requirements of notice and opportunity to respond as to Plaintiff States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on their challenges to Sections 3(d)(ii) and 4(a) of Executive Order No. 14248 have been satisfied by the briefing, hearing, and meet and confer on the parties’ pending crossmotions, and the parties have waived further briefing on those claims.
The Plaintiff States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to their claims challenging Sections 3(d)(ii) and 4(a) of Executive Order No. 14248 is hereby taken under submission.
With the recent SCOTUS ruling on mail-in ballots, that it will take Congress to act to incorporate these changes to Federal voting.
BTW, did you notice that this judge went from being a 'regular' judge to being a district judge to now being chief district judge? There is an appearance that her rulings on this and other cases involving President Trump might have been a factor in her promotions.
In the lawsuit League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump docket # 1:26-cv-11549 (discussed in my April 4, 2026 ANP Article) filed in District Court, District of Columbia on April 2, 2026 about Election Integrity Executive Order where the League of Women Voters sued the Trump administration over the new executive order titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," which purports to exert federal control over election administration and limit mail-in ballots.
In State of California, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 26-cv-11581, Plaintiffs’ civil cover sheet stated that the case is related to the earlier-filed League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., 26-cv-11549, because “some of the defendants in the two cases are the same[,]” and “the cases involve the same or substantially similar issues of fact and/or arise out of the same occurrence, specifically, President Trump’s issuance of Executive Order 14399, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, on March 31, 2026.” Accordingly, the Clerk assigned the later-filed case to this session pursuant to Local Rule 40.1(g)(8).
After the court entered a Scheduling Order in State of California, the parties in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts filed a proposed briefing and hearing schedule that “conforms to the schedule” entered in State of California, noting that the case is “about the same Executive Order at issue here.”
Upon the court’s initial review of the Complaints in these two cases, it appears that the cases “involve . . . common question[s] of law or fact[.]” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 42(a). After conferring, counsel in the two cases shall file, no later than April 21, 2026, a Joint Statement regarding whether the court should consolidate the two actions. The Joint Statement shall include any proposed modifications to the Scheduling Order entered in State of California and the proposed schedule submitted in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts as to the deadlines, page limits, and hearing dates following the anticipated April 23, 2026 filings.
. . . the court GRANTS Defendants’ and Intervenor States’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff Organizations’ complaint and Plaintiff States’ amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on prudential ripeness grounds as to their claims regarding the EO and its implementation with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026, and dismisses such claims without prejudice. The court DENIES Defendants’ and Intervenor States’ motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on prudential ripeness grounds as to Plaintiff Organizations’ complaint and Plaintiff States’ amended complaint with regard to the November 3, 2026 election, and all earlier elections.
And so, the lawsuit continues.
It will take a literal Act of Congress to put an end to these election lawsuits being upheld by activist judges.
On July 5, 2026, the White House published America 250: Presidential Message on the Anniversary of the Battle of Chippawa (last discussed in my July 7, 2025 ANP Article) commemorating the historic victory of the American Forces at the Battle of Chippawa where 3,564 mostly untested American soldiers met the 2,000 soldier well-trained British Army and prevailed. The British Army was led by Phineas Riall. The US Army was led by Jacob Brown, Winfield Scott, Peter Porter, and Red Jacket. The battle lasted a single day with the US casualties reaching 60 killed, 249 wounded, and 19 missing. The British casualties were 108 dead, 319 wounded, 100 captured, and 18 missing.
This year, the message adds:
The American triumph at Chippawa proved once and for all that the United States Army could overcome the mightiest forces on Earth and beat them in open battle. And from that hard-won legacy emerged a tradition of excellence that endures today in our Armed Forces. As we celebrate 250 years of glorious American Independence this year, we draw strength from the immortal heroes of the Battle of Chippawa, whose courage amid the cannon’s roar proclaimed for all time that a free people would never bow to tyranny. That same indomitable American Spirit endures in our people even now, and the fire our forebears kindled that day burns brighter still, lighting the way for our Nation, destined to stand forever strong, forever proud, and forever free.
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.
